City Council Agenda Packet 01-26-2026AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING – MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
Monday, January 26, 2026 – 6:30 p.m.
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Mayor: Lloyd Hilgart
Council Members: Kip Christianson, Charlotte Gabler, Tracy Hinz, and Lee Martie
1. General Business
A. Call to Order & Pledge of Allegiance
B. Approval of Agenda – Councilmembers or the City Administrator may add items
to the agenda for discussion purposes or approval. The City Council may or may
not take official action on items added to the agenda.
C. Approval of Meeting Minutes
• Joint Workshop Minutes from December 15, 2025
• Special Meeting Minutes from January 12, 2026
• Regular Meeting Minutes from January 12, 2026
D. Citizen Comments – Individuals may address the City Council about any item not
contained on the agenda. Each speaker will be allotted three minutes with a
maximum of five speakers. The Mayor may allow for additional time and/or
speakers. The City Council generally takes no official action of items discussed,
except for referral to staff for future report.
E. Public Service Announcements/Updates
F. Council Liaison Updates
• Economic Development Authority (EDA)
• Monticello Orderly Annexation Board (MOAA Board)
G. Department Updates
• Wright County Sheriff’s Office Quarterly Update
• Building Department Update
• Wright County Economic Development Partnership – Partner of the Year
Award
2. Consent Agenda – All items listed on the Consent Agenda are considered standard or
may not need discussion prior to approval. These items are acted upon by one motion
unless a councilmember, the city administrator, or a citizen requests the item by
removed from consent for additional discussion.
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP
(Academy Room)
5:00 – 6:15 p.m. Water Treatment Plant Project Update
A. Consideration of approving payment of bills
B. Consideration of approving new hires and departures for City departments
C. Consideration of approving the sale/disposal of surplus city property
D. Consideration of approving two applications for two temporary gambling
permits for Parenting With Grace, Inc. for events on March 7, 2026, at the
American Legion, 304 Elm Street, and October 3, 2025, at River City Extreme,
3875 School Blvd.
E. Consideration of approving the appointment of Erin Stein to the Parks, Arts, and
Recreation Commission for a term to expire December 31, 2026
F. Consideration of approving a request for Conditional Use Permit for Auto Repair
– Major and a variance to City Code Section 153.091 Use-Specific Standards, for
door opening to service area garage on street frontage, for a project in a B-3
(Highway Business) District. Applicant: Mohammad Awad
G. Consideration of adopting Resolution 2026-03 accepting improvements and
authorizing final payment of $12,319 to Jacon, LLC, for the 2020 Stormwater
Project
H. Consideration of authorizing the purchase of a 2024 HAMM HD14iVV asphalt
roller for $65,833.83 and declaring the 2002 Stone Wolf Pack 3100 roller as
surplus
2A. Consideration of items removed from the consent agenda for discussion
3. Public Hearings
4. Regular Agenda
A. Consideration of approving Resolution 2026-02 adopting the Monticello
Industrial Alternative Urban Areawide Review and adopting the Monticello
Industrial Alternative Urban Areawide Review Mitigation Plan for a 550-acre
industrial development study area including a light industrial scenario and a
technology campus scenario that could include a data center and appurtenant
uses
5. Adjournment
MINUTES
WORKSHOP – JOINT CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING COMMISSION
December 15, 2025 – 6:30 p.m.
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
City Councilmembers: Mayor Lloyd Hilgart, Kip Christianson, Charlotte Gabler, Tracy
Hinz, Lee Martie
Commissioners: Chair Andrew Tapper, Vice-Chair Melissa Robeck,
Rick Kothenbeutel, Rob Stark
Commissioners Absent: Teri Lehner
Staff Present: Rachel Leonard, Angela Schumann, Matt Leonard, Bob Ferguson,
Jim Thares
Consultants Present: Leila Bunge - Kimley Horn, Alison Harwood - WSB
1. General Business
A. Call to Order
Mayor Hilgart called the joint workshop to order at 6:30 p.m.
B. Discussion and Comments on Monticello Industrial Alternative Urban Areawide
Review (AUAR)
Community Development Director Angela Schumann provided a brief overview
on the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR), including its purpose, the
data collected, and the scope of the analysis. She introduced the consultants in
attendance, who provided additional information and an overview of the AUAR
document, which evaluates two development scenarios. Administrator Rachel
Leonard discussed the City Council’s responsibilities for implementation of the
AUAR mitigation strategies, including coordination with applicable state
agencies.
o AUAR Document Overview
Leila Bunge, Planner with Kimley-Horn, explained that Monticello Industrial
AUAR includes a wetland delineation, transportation impact analyses for
both construction and operation, and an initial drainage assessment. She
noted the city had provided a preliminary aquifer analysis and a preliminary
sanitary service assessment. Ms. Bunge reported that archaeological
consultants and other state agency–led assessments are currently underway.
Ms. Bunge outlined the additional studies the AUAR requires upon submittal
of future development plans. These studies include noise mitigation, a
stormwater management plan, phased environmental site assessments for
potential contaminants, a tree survey, potential supplemental archaeological
Joint City Council & Planning Commission Workshop – 12/15/2025
2
assessments, and a hydrogeological analysis consistent with MPCA
guidelines. She said additional Environmental Assessment Worksheets may
be required, along with a well capacity and aquifer pumping plan prior to
construction. Further project-specific reviews will address any proposed
backup generators, as well as sewer line extensions, water appropriation,
and other utility-related needs.
Regarding regulatory mitigation, Alison Harwood, Director of Natural
Resources with WSB, explained that the relevant regulatory agencies in
Minnesota include the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the
Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC), and the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (DNR). She noted that state statute
establishes a 120-day timeline for completion of environmental reviews,
including the EAW and AUAR collectively.
Ms. Bunge and Ms. Harwood provided a high-level overview of water-related
impacts and mitigation measures identified in the Monticello Industrial
AUAR. Ms. Harwood stated that development of the subject site will require
temporary dewatering, or the removal of standing groundwater from
construction areas, subject to MN-DNR permitting approval.
In response to a question regarding potential denial of a wetland mitigation
permit by the DNR, Ms. Schumann explained the process for wetland
mitigation planning and replacement. Discussion continued regarding
groundwater resources, wells, and wastewater mitigation. Ms. Schumann
explained that the City’s stormwater management standards are more
stringent than minimum State requirements and that these standards are
reflected in the scenarios provided.
It was noted that the AUAR provides maximum limits for water usage.
Members discussed estimated water usage associated with current
agricultural irrigation, potential usage caps on aquifer withdrawals for the
subject site, both prior to and following annexation, and sustainability
considerations.
Councilmember Christianson asked whether surrounding natural water
bodies were considered in the evaluation of available water resources. City
Engineer Matt Leonard described the aquifers utilized for City purposes and
the current study of well locations relative to the new water treatment plant.
He explained that the aquifer analysis identifies and isolates water demands
and impacts in coordination with the MN-DNR, and that well monitoring and
Joint City Council & Planning Commission Workshop – 12/15/2025
3
testing are part of the appropriation process and mitigation planning for
surrounding wells. Mr. Leonard confirmed that well testing would be
completed and that results would be made available.
Commissioner Kothenbeutel stated that he had researched data center
cooling systems in other states that utilize recirculated wastewater and
asked whether Minnesota regulations allow for this practice. City
Administrator Rachel Leonard explained the DNR’s role in developing
mitigation strategies for increased appropriations and discussed
opportunities to review water consumption through innovative approaches
using naturally available water resources.
Councilmember Christianson inquired whether a water use agreement
between an end user and the City could be used as a performance measure
to reduce consumption. Mr. Leonard discussed potential amendments to the
AUAR and the need for appropriate MPCA permits.
Administrator Leonard clarified that all water and wastewater infrastructure
extensions are intended to serve City utilities overall and are not designed to
serve a single site. She explained that the growth scenario for this area
includes additional wells and trunk infrastructure regardless of any potential
data center development.
Ms. Bunge addressed additional AUAR study components, including a brief
overview of contamination analysis and mitigation. Chair Commissioner
Tapper requested amendment to Table 19 pertaining to sites 150255
(Genereux Fine Wood Products) and 35957 (The H Window Co) as being
outside the required study area.
Ms. Bunge stated that an archeological assessment was completed for the
site which identified three areas of interest located in proximity to, but
outside of the subject site, as documented in the AUAR. She noted that
additional studies may be necessary depending on the results of State
review.
Ms. Bunge explained that the AUAR does not evaluate air impacts studies;
however, if potential emissions from generator use exceed allowable
thresholds, additional review by the MPCA would be required. She also noted
that, without specific project information, additional noise evaluations for
mitigation may be required, per City ordinance and State regulation.
Ms. Bunge provided an overview of each development scenario in terms of
traffic measures and mitigation both during construction and operation. She
Joint City Council & Planning Commission Workshop – 12/15/2025
4
also outlined other potential effects associated with the development
scenarios and the mitigation plan elements, including power Needs, site
Security, and electromagnetic field (EMF) considerations.
City Engineer Matt Leonard provided a high-level overview on the
components of the comprehensive utility plans for City water and sewer
systems, and information based on past trunk extensions and improvements.
Members and staff discussed the annexation process for development in this
area, noting the land use is guided for the full orderly annexation area.
A member noted the five-year approval period on an approved AUAR and
inquired about the process for review if for development occurs on a longer
timeframe. Staff and consultants explained the process for amending the
AUAR, which could occur at intervals and account for development and
mitigation to date.
Councilmember Christianson suggested that additional clarity regarding the
actual development area in each scenario would be helpful. Ms. Bunge
responded that the purpose of an AUAR is to research land use scenarios, not
a specified project or site plan.
Members briefly discussed the Rapid infiltration Basins (RIBs) operations and
permitting, which is proposed for the technology campus development
scenario.
o Review of Comments
Ms. Bunge informed members that the AUAR is currently in a 30-day public
comment period. Following the conclusion of this period, submitted
comments received will be addressed in a revised AUAR, which will then be
subject to a ten-day objection period for state agencies.
Further discussion proceeded regarding the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Ms.
Schumann explained that while both scenarios contemplate development
under the Light Industrial Park (LIP) designation, the technology park
scenario would allow data canters as the principal and majority use, whereas
the second scenario would reflect existing allowable light industrial uses.
Councilmember Christianson expressed support for the review process,
noting that it provides proactive measures and accountability for a use which
was not previously anticipated. Ms. Schumann added that the AUAR process
allows the City to review more than one concept development proposal at a
Joint City Council & Planning Commission Workshop – 12/15/2025
5
subject site as a tool for examining and addressing potential development
impacts.
Ms. Bunge provided a high-level summary of the review and response
process for comments received, including those received from Wright County
the Minnesota Department of Health.
Ms. Schumann noted the full AUAR document and comments collected are
available to review on the Environmental Review section of the city website;
Future comments regarding the AUAR are accepted until December 18, 2025
for revisionary reviews prior to consideration by Council for anticipated
ordinance adoption in January 2026.
o Board Questions & Comments
When asked about the implications if the AUAR is not accepted, Ms.
Harwood explained that the document does not constitute a project
approval. She stated that the AUAR serves as a planning tool for identifying
mitigation measures and, if necessary, for triggering additional
environmental review in accordance with statutory timelines. Ms. Harwood
added that additional comments from other regulatory entities are expected
prior to the close of the public comment period on December 18.
Ms. Schumann emphasized that the AUAR document should be as clear as
the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) deems necessary in its final form
to support informed decision-making.
Councilmembers and Commissioners discussed Environmental Assessment
Worksheets (EAWs), feedback received through the AUAR process in
developing mitigation strategies, and construction practices related to noise.
One member noted the AUAR allows evaluation of broader project
components and potential unknown operational impacts.
In response to a question about whether the city would serve as the
authorizing agent for notifications and public comment periods related to
required EAWs, Ms. Harwood confirmed that coordination would occur
between the RGU and the City.
Councilmember Christianson commended staff and members for their review
of the process, noting that the AUAR provides increased clarity for both the
subject site and future applications. He noted the value of the process in
considering environmental impacts for other potential technology campus
sites and uses generally, specifically referencing the Bertram Chain of Lakes
area.
Joint City Council & Planning Commission Workshop – 12/15/2025
6
Ms. Schumann referenced recent Planning Commission discussions related to
housing goals and suggested that an additional workshop be scheduled for
board members and commissioners to further address housing goals and
land use considerations related to those goals. She noted that the 2040
Comprehensive Plan is a living document and may be reviewed and amended
at the discretion of decision-makers.
Councilmember Gabler suggested additional information be included
regarding noise and air quality components, if such information is not
received prior to the close of the comment period on December 18.
When asked about the parameters for air quality, Ms. Harwood explained
that specific site conditions associated with emissions are unknown at this
time and is reason mitigation strategies were not included at this time. She
noted that additional studies would be required should generators be
proposed in the future.
2. Adjournment
The workshop was adjourned at 8:38 p.m.
Recorder by: Anne Mueller
Approved 1/26/26: ___________________________
Jennifer Schreiber
Attest: __________________________________
City Administrator
City Council Special Meeting Minutes – January 12, 2026
MINUTES
MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
Monday, January 12, 2026 – 5:00 p.m.
Monticello Community Center
Present: Lloyd Hilgart, Charlotte Gabler, Kip Christianson, and Tracy Hinz
Absent: Lee Martie
Staff: Rachel Leonard, Sarah Rathlisberger, Angela Schumann, Matt Leonard, and Tom
Pawelk
1. Call to Order
Mayor Lloyd Hilgart called the special meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
2. Annual Administrative Update
Rachel Leonard, City Administrator, reviewed common guidelines and best practices for
City Council. There was review discussion on the following items: City Council Authority,
Communications, Social Media Use, Agenda Items, Council Meeting Protocol, Open
Meeting Law, and Data Practices.
3. Highway 25 Update
Matt Leonard, City Engineer/Public Works Director, provided an overview of the Trunk
Highway 25 Corridor Study completed by MnDOT in 2025. City staff participated in the
study that assessed a 4.5-mile section of TH25 between Monticello and Big Lake,
focusing on intersection controls, operational performance, and potential improvements
that balance cost and community impacts.
Mr. Leonard explained that the study broke the corridor into three segments, two of
which are located within Monticello. The southernmost segment, from I-94 to School
Boulevard, is generally functioning well, with only minor peak-hour impacts. Potential
future improvements, that are currently unfunded, include multilane roundabouts at
key intersections and completion of sidewalk gaps to improve pedestrian safety.
The middle segment, from the Mississippi River bridge to I-94 through downtown
Monticello, presents more immediate concerns due to congestion, safety issues, and
limited right-of-way. MnDOT’s proposed improvements include access control changes,
traffic signal modifications, and additional intersection control at 4th Street. City Council
discussed the proposed changes and the potential local impacts.
Mayor Hilgart and Council Member Christianson expressed concerns regarding the
proposed modifications to the 7th Street intersection. Other Council members echoed
City Council Special Meeting Minutes – January 12, 2026
these concerns and requested that alternative options be explored or that MnDOT
consider limiting changes to peak periods only.
Council Member Hinz noted that any corridor changes should be incorporated into EDA
planning efforts for redevelopment on the east side of TH25.
Mr. Leonard also reviewed MnDOT’s cost participation policy and the City’s role in
future projects, particularly at intersections where City streets intersect the state
highway. Finally, he concluded by noting MnDOT’s request for the city engineer to sign
off on the corridor study’s intersection control evaluation reports.
The consensus from the City Council is they would prefer an opportunity to meet with
MnDOT representatives to discuss proposed corridor changes in greater detail prior to
city staff signing the documents. City staff agreed to facilitate scheduling a meeting.
4. Adjournment
By consensus, the meeting was adjourned at 6:25 p.m.
Recorder: Jennifer Schreiber ____________________
Attest: ________________________
City Administrator
Department of
Building Safety &
Code Enforcement
2026 Annual Update
About the Department
ABOUT
•Bob Ferguson – Chief Building Official
(1 year),
Inspector (4 years)
•Wayne Kalla – Inspector (3.5 years)
•Mark Gerber – Inspector (2 years),
Fire Inspector (1 year)
•Steve Kowalczyk – Inspector (6 months)
•Amy L. Biren – Building Permit Technician
(1.5 years)
•Anne Mueller – Administrative Assistant
(1 year)
Building Plan Review & Inspection
PLANS & INSPECTION
•Total number of
permits:
•2024: 2,799 permits
•2025: 1,821 permits
38
557
1324
52
472
470
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Commercial Roofing and Siding
Single-family Attached Roofing and Siding
Single-family Detached Roofing and Siding
Roofing and Siding Permits
2025 2024
Residential Single Family New Construction
PLANS & INSPECTION
0 2000000 4000000 6000000 8000000 10000000 12000000 14000000 16000000 18000000
Country Club 4th Add
Haven Ridge 2nd Add
Edmonson Ridge
Autumn Ridge Villas
Meadowbrook
Featherstone 6th Addn
Individual Builders
Totals
Country Club 4th
Add
Haven Ridge 2nd
Add Edmonson Ridge Autumn Ridge
Villas Meadowbrook Featherstone 6th
Addn Individual Builders Totals
2024 Valuation $3,800,000 $6,500,712 $3,184,587 $224,213 $1,546,238 $426,848 $15,682,598
2024 Permit Totals 38 27 11 1 6 1 84
2025 Valuation $4,896,521 $6,577,746 $2,253,816 $810,000 $1,148,546 $453,594 $16,140,223
2025 Permit Totals 24 26 8 3 4 1 66
2024-2025 Permits by Developments
2024 Valuation 2024 Permit Totals 2025 Valuation 2025 Permit Totals
Commercial Construction: New, Alterations, Tenant Build Out
PLANS & INSPECTION
2024$1,788,350 $3,774,000 $3,355,500
$8,917,850
35
$4,884,900
$21,522,384
$1,204,004
$27,611,288
36
2024-2025 COMMERCIAL PERMITS
2024 2025
2024 Projects
PLANS & INSPECTION
Block 52 – Simplicity - St Croix Hospice
2024 Projects
PLANS & INSPECTION
Jensen Machinery
2025 Projects
PLANS & INSPECTION
Fairfield Inn & Suites Boulder Tap House
Discount Tire
Building Plan Review & Inspection
PLANS & INSPECTION
MN Sports Card
Big Bore Cue StopMN Sports Card
Education
PLANS & INSPECTION
•Ron’s Code Corner – Quarterly meeting with area inspectors to review and discuss
code and share ideas.
•Schums Coda Associates – Provides training, education, and code development within
building related industries. Participated in Ron’s Code Corner to provide a day-long
seminar on energy code for area inspectors with continuing education credits.
•Building Safety Month in May 2025 – Communication campaign on social media to
promote building safety, the importance of codes, and the role of building
professionals.
Rental Licensing
RENTAL LICENSES
•Ensuring current rental housing properties provide
safe, healthy, and code compliant dwelling units.
•Rental Connection
•Workshop for property owners of multi-family rental
housing held twice yearly.
•Provides opportunities for education, discussion of concerns, and feedback from property owners.
•2025: increased attendance from previous years.
•Application process updated in 2026
•Applications updated and reformatted for ease of use.
•Notifications to rental property owners included emails and postcards via USPS. Vibrant yellow and
orange cardstock used for high visibility.
•Notifications began October 1, 2026.
2025 Rental Licensing
RENTAL LICENSES
2025: Odd numbered addresses inspected
•1572 units under 255 property owners
•Late applications: 16 property owners
2%
40%
43%
15%
Even Addresses Applications
October
November
December
Late
1%
29%
60%
10%
Odd Addresses Applications
October
November
December
Late
2025: Even numbered addresses
•647 units under 211 property owners
•Late applications: 35 property owners
2026 Rental Licensing
RENTAL LICENSES
2026: Even number addresses to be inspected
•652 units under 214 property owners
•Noncompliant applications: 17 properties
•134 properties inspected as of January 23, 2026
•90 units scheduled for inspection
10%
26%
56%
8%
Even Addresses Applications
October
November
December
Late
14%
25%57%
4%
Odd Addresses Applications
October
November
December
Late
2026: Odd numbered addresses
•1569 units under 252 property owners
•Noncompliant applications: 9 properties
Fire Code Inspections
FIRE INSPECTIONS
•Commercial property database
•388 properties representing any single-
door, single-level buildings to large
apartment buildings.
•Properties are categorized from Extreme
Hazard to Low Hazard and are subject to
recategorization upon inspection of real
activity and risks observed.
•Businesses are contacted via USPS and
door-knocking to schedule inspections.
•2025 focused on High Hazard and Extreme
Hazard occupancies.
64
3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
PASSED
REINSPECTION NEEDED
2025 Inspection Results
Fire Code Inspections
FIRE INSPECTIONS
•Example of a recent fire
inspection and the newly
created inspection report.
•Report is emailed to the
business owner.
Fire Code Inspections
FIRE INSPECTIONS
•Fire lockboxes or KnoxBox
•Fire lockboxes are installed on the exterior of businesses
to hold a key to the business in case of an emergency.
Only the Fire Inspector and Monticello Fire Department
have a key to access the fire lock box.
•151 lockboxes have been verified as being placed on
buildings.
•97 of the lockboxes have keys that work to open the
doors or have been updated with new keys from new
owners.
Code Enforcement
CODE ENFORCEMENT
•Verified code complaints remained similar between 2024 and 2025.
33%
25%
24%
15%
3%
2024
Grass/Weeds
Off-street Parking
Prohibited Storage
Expired Tabs
Inoperable Vehicles
33%
24%
23%
13%
7%
2025
Grass/Weeds
Off-street Parking
Prohibited Storage
Expired Tabs
Inoperable Vehicles
Collaboration
The Department of Building Safety & Code Enforcement partners closely with internal departments to
strengthen and support our community. Our collaborative efforts ensure that every project, process,
and interaction contributes to a city where people feel connected, protected, and at home.
Shared Goals Streamlined
Processes
Information
Flow
Problem
Solving
Community
Outreach
& Education
COLLABORATION
Questions?
WRIGHT COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE
Monticello City Quarterly Review
QUARTERLY REVIEW
4TH QUARTER 2025
4th Quarter Comparison Review
ACTIVITY 2024 (4th Quarter)2025 (4th Quarter)Increase/Decrease
Calls for Service assigned in Monticello 3574 3878 +8.5%
Case Reports assigned 1373 1619 +17.9%
-Burglary 1 2 +1
-Damaged to Property 14 13 -1
-General Thefts 25 20 -5
-Thefts from vehicle 4 4 NO CHANGE
-Shoplifting 33 23 -10
Drug Complaints 17 14 -3
Juvenile Complaints 34 39 +5
Motor Vehicle Crashes 105 (6 w/ injuries)106 (11 w/ injuries)+1
Assault Complaints 2 9 +7
Domestic Disturbance Complaints 34 36 +2
Traffic Stops 1185 1362 +177
DUI Incidents 21 24 +3
Citations Issued (Criminal, Traffic & Ordinance)343 422 +79
Individuals Arrested/Booked into Jail 61 62 +1
Divisional Highlights
4th Qtr -2024 4th Qtr -2025
Criminal Investigations Division 32 26
Special Investigations Unit 15 5
Major Crimes Investigation Unit 10 6
Digital Forensics Unit 10 5
School Resource Officer Unit 31 24
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)-2
Co-Responder
18 total contacts in Monticello this quarter.
Highlight:
4th Quarter: 73 Calls
YTD 2026: 4
Annual Report Sneak Peak
2024 2025 % Change
Calls for Service (CFS)12,923 14,550 +12.6%
Citizen Generated CFS 6,623 7,034 +6.2%
Cases 6,183 6,832 +10.5%
Traffic Stops 4,715 6,024 +27.8%
Citations 1,404 1,673 +19.2%
Arrests 282 291 +3.2%
Flock Safety
What is it?
MN Statute 13.824
What is data is collected?
How long is data retained.
60 days by statute, 30 days by policy.
Specific record(s) tied to specific criminal
investigation(s) may be kept longer.
Flock Safety
How can the data be used?
Must be used for legitimate law enforcement
purposes.
Warrant or exigent circumstances required to
tracking individuals.
May alert to other crimes:
Stolen vehicle
Stolen License Plates
Warrant
Missing Person
KOPS Alerts
Flock Safety
Data is owned by WCSO –Never sold to 3rd parties.
Data is classified as non-public.
Audit log for searches of data.
Biennial audit required.
Public transparency portal.
3 Camera’s in Monticello; 11 Countywide
State Highway 25 & I94 (x2) and State Highway 25 and Oakwood Dr E.
Questions?
City Council Minutes: January 12, 2026 Page 1 | 7
MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
Monday, January 12, 2026 – 6:30 p.m.
Mississippi Room, Monticello Community Center
Present: Lloyd Hilgart, Kip Christianson, Charlotte Gabler, and Tracy Hinz
Absent: Lee Martie
1. General Business
A. Call to Order & Pledge of Allegiance
Mayor Hilgart called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
B. Approval of Agenda
Councilmember Christianson requested to add an item to the agenda for discussion
on directing the Planning Commission to reguide a parcel near Bertram Chain of
Lakes and allow the Commission to initiate proceedings for public hearing.
Motion by Councilmember Hinz to approve the agenda with the addition as
requested by Councilmember Christianson. Councilmember Christianson seconded
the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
C. Approval of Meeting Minutes
• Joint Workshop Minutes from November 3, 2025
• Regular Meeting Minutes from December 8, 2025
Motion by Councilmember Gabler to approve the minutes (with it noted that
Councilmember Gabler was not at the November 3, 2025 meeting).
Councilmember Hinz seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
D. Citizen Comments
The following spoke under citizen comments:
• A Monticello resident, member of a Facebook group formed in opposition to
the potential data center, addressed the City Council. She outlined the
group’s reasons for opposing the project and raised questions regarding the
City’s consideration of permitting the data center.
• Ben Anderson, 4208 Eaton Circle NE. Mr. Anderson address the Council
regarding Frattalone Companies, the developer of the proposed data center.
He cited alleged violations of state statute related to the omission of salary
information on their website.
City Council Minutes: January 12, 2026 Page 2 | 7
City Administrator Rachel Leonard read into the public record a statement from
Monticello resident James Vanderlinden regarding the adoption of the property tax
levy in December 2025. Mr. Vanderlinden noted that he was unable to attend the
full December meeting and left before the public hearing. In his statement, he
expressed concern that his property taxes have increased by 10% over the last five
years, which he considers unsustainable. He suggested that any increase in the levy
should not 0-2% and identified potential areas for cost reductions, including fighting
back on mandates, reducing services and City hours, and decreasing City staff.
E. Public Service Announcements
• Rachel Leonard noted the following public announcements:
- Winter reminders on parking and clearing of snow.
- Update on data center ordinance and workshop scheduled for January 15.
- Holiday Hours for Martin Luther King Jr. day.
- Glo-Fest workshop dates.
F. Council Liaison Updates
• Library Board – Councilmember Hinz commented on the final meeting of 2025,
noting that one of the items discussed was the potential addition of attendance
requirements to the ordinance establishing the Library Board.
• Planning Commission – Councilmember Christianson provided an update on the
regular meeting held on January 6, 2026, as well as a joint workshop involving
the Commission, City Council, and the Parks, Arts, and Recreation Commission
regarding park dedication. He reported that the regular meeting included
consideration of three items: a variance, zoning ordinance amendments, and the
2026 zoning map. He also noted discussion related to the data center ordinance,
including its postponement to the February meeting. Additionally, he mentioned
that the Community Development Director provided an update on department
activity.
• Industrial & Economic Development Committee (IEDC) – Councilmember Gabler
provided an overview of the meeting and reported that the committee selected
its officers for 2026, along with approving position and action statements. She
also noted discussion regarding preferred table topics for the 2026 meetings and
updates received on various projects.
• I-94 Coalition – Councilmember Gabler gave an update on meetings held in
December and January. She reported that the December meeting included State
and Federal updates. At the January meeting, discussion focused on the
City Council Minutes: January 12, 2026 Page 3 | 7
legislative preview breakfast scheduled for February and the annual trip to
Washington D.C., planned for June.
G. Department Updates
• DMV Update - Carolyn Granger, Deputy Registrar Manager, presented the DMV
annual update. The presentation included information on staff, revenue and
operations.
• Hi-Way Liquor Update – Randall Johnsen, Liquor Store Manager, presented Hi-
Ways liquor annual update. The update included information on staffing issues,
revenues, and events.
2. Consent Agenda:
Motion by Councilmember Hinz to approve the Consent Agenda, items A-O.
Councilmember Christianson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion by Councilmember Hinz to approve item 2P (added item). Councilmember
Christianson seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
A. Consideration of approving the payment of bills. Action taken: Approved the bill
and purchase card registers for a total of $6,686,558.09.
B. Consideration of approving new hires and departures for City departments.
Action taken: Approved the hires for the Monticello Community Center (MCC)
and departures for the MCC and Streets Department.
C. Consideration of approving the sale/disposal of surplus city property. Action
taken: No report.
D. Consideration of appointing Joan Breslin to the Monticello Library Board for term
to expire December 31, 2028. Action taken: Approved the appointment of Joan
Breslin to the Library Board.
E. Consideration of adopting Resolution 2026-01 approving the issuance of a lawful
off-site gambling permit for the Monticello Lions for bar bingo at the American
Legion Post 260 on February 7, 2026. Action taken: Adopted Resolution 2026-01
approving the gambling permit for the Monticello Lions.
F. Consideration of approving annual appointments and designations for 2026.
Action taken: Approved the annual appointments and designations for 2026.
G. Consideration of renewing membership in the I-94 West Corridor Coalition for
2026 in the amount of $7,741. Action taken: Approved membership renewal in
the I-94 West Corridor Coalition.
City Council Minutes: January 12, 2026 Page 4 | 7
H. Consideration of approving a special event permit allowing use of Ellison Park
and related assistance for Wright/Sherburne Pride Committee for an event on
July 18, 2026. Applicant: Sharon Olson. Action taken: Approved the special
event permit for the Wright/Sherburne Pride Committee.
I. Consideration of approving a special event permit for the American Red Cross for
use of Monticello Community Center Mississippi Room to conduct blood drives
on February 4, 2026 and October 27, 2026. Action taken: Approved the special
event permit for the American Red Cross.
J. Consideration of approving submission of the 2026 Pay Equity Report. Action
taken: Approved the submission of the 2026 Pay Equity Report.
K. Consideration of adopting Ordinance 862 for adoption of the 2026 City of
Monticello Official Zoning Map. Action taken: Adopting Ordinance 862
approving the 2026 City of Monticello Official Zoning Map.
L. Consideration of adopting Ordinance 863 amending the Monticello City Code,
Title XV: Land Usage, Chapter 153: Zoning Ordinance, Section 153.012 –
Definitions, 153.090 – Use Table, 153.070 – Building Materials, 153.064 – Signs,
153.091 – Use-Specific Standards, and 153.043 – Residential Base Zoning
Districts. Applicant: City of Monticello. Action taken: Adopted Ordinance 863
amending the Monticello City Code for various code updates.
M. Consideration of approving quotes from Castrejon, Inc. for Fibernet installation
within the Meadowbrook Development in the amount of $72,956.95. Action
taken: Approved the quote and contract with Castrejon, Inc.
N. Consideration of approving plans and specifications and authorization to bid for
the Monticello Public Library Site Improvements Project. Action taken:
Approved plans and specifications and authorization to bid for the Monticello
Public Library Site Improvements Project.
O. Consideration of approving a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between
Wright County and the City of Monticello for the use of the Monticello
Community Center (MCC) as an Emergency Shelter. Action taken: Approved the
MOU for the use of the MCC as an Emergency Shelter.
P. ADDED ITEM: Consideration of approving an application for a temporary
gambling permit for a raffle to be conducted by Wright County Ducks Unlimited,
Chapter 39 on February 23, 2026, at American Legion Post 260, 304 Elm Street.
Action taken: Motion by Councilmember Hinz to approve the gambling permit.
City Council Minutes: January 12, 2026 Page 5 | 7
Councilmember Christianson seconded the motion. Motion carried
unanimously.
3. Public Hearing:
4. Regular Agenda:
A. Consideration of City comment on Ordinance Amendments 26-1 and 26-2 for the
Monticello Orderly Annexation Area Zoning and Subdivision ordinance
Community Development Director Angela Schumann presented the item and
noted that it was a new procedure for the City Council. She provided an
overview of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance amendments for the
Monticello Orderly Annexation Area (MOAA), which is governed by a Joint
Powers Board (JPB) consisting of City, Township, and County representatives.
The ordinance amendments are scheduled for public hearing on January 14,
2026.
Ms. Schumann presented the amendment to inform the City Council of a revised
review and comment projects and to receive Council input. The Zoning
amendment include updated regulations for keeping chickens on smaller parcels,
clerical corrections, and revisions to Planned Unit Development regulations
intended to clarify procedures.
Ms. Schumann noted that the Wright County Planning Department acts as
advisory to the MOAA JPB, and they indicated that to be consistent with the
County practice they will send ordinance amendments 30 days in advance for
review as it relates to the MOAA. The City Council can decide whether they want
to comment or defer to the two Council representatives on the MOAA JPB.
Staff recommended adoption of the proposed amendments, subject to
additional clarifications outlined in the staff report. Ms. Schumann requested
City Council direction on whether future MOAA ordinance amendments should
be presented to the full Council for comment or continues to be reviewed by the
City’s designated JPB representatives through the established MOAA public
hearing process.
There was some discussion by Councilmembers on whether ordinance
amendments in the MOAA should be brought to City Council or deferred to the
representatives that serve on the MOAA JPB. There was consensus by City
Council that these items continue to be brought forward to the Council for
comment.
City Council Minutes: January 12, 2026 Page 6 | 7
Motion by Councilmember Gabler to recommend approval of Ordinance
Amendments 26-1 and 26-2 for the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area Zoning
and Subdivision ordinance subject to comments made by City Councilmembers
and those referenced in the staff report. Councilmember Hinz seconded the
motion. Motion carried unanimously.
5. Additional Discussion:
Councilmember Christianson initiated discussion regarding the potential reguidance of
land near the Bertram Chain of Lakes (BCOL) Park. Angela Schumann explained that any
change of any land use guidance would require an amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan, including a public hearing to consider revisions to the land use map and its
associated guidance.
Councilmember Christianson proposed that the City Council, in a joint session with the
Planning Commission, review the reguidance of the parcel currently under consideration
by Scannell Properties. He stated that, in his opinion, the property should be reguided to
estate residential.
Councilmember Gabler asked whether the property is located within Otter Creek
Business Park. Angela Schumann responded that this parcel, along with three others in
the area, is located within the MOAA and is currently guided for light industrial park use.
She confirmed the number and location of parcels under discussion and noted that any
potential amendment to reguide these parcels would require evaluation of their
proximity to Otter Creek Business Park, BCOL, and nearby residential uses.
Councilmember Christianson agreed that evaluation of the parcels should be a part of
the review.
Motion by Councilmember Christianson to direct Planning Commission to conduct a
public hearing at their next available meeting on a comprehensive plan amendment to
the Monticello 2040 Future Land Use Map for the four parcels identified by Ms.
Schumann. Councilmember Hinz seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously.
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:31 p.m.
Jennifer Schreiber __________________________________
Attest: ____________________________________
City Council Minutes: January 12, 2026 Page 7 | 7
City Administrator
City Council Agenda: 1/26/2026
1
2A. Consideration of approving payment of bills
Prepared by:
Finance Director
Meeting Date:
1/26/2026
☒ Consent Agenda Item
☐ Regular Agenda Item
Reviewed by:
N/A
Approved by:
City Administrator
ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to approve the bill and purchase card registers for a total amount of $1,167,609.53.
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
City staff submits the following items for approval by Council:
• $ 161,508.69 Claims for recurring electronic payments and purchasing cards*
• $ 698,495.75 Claims for invoices received since last Council meeting*
• $ 194,175.82 Payroll wages
• $ 112,511.76 Payroll taxes and benefits
• $ 917.51 Utility Billing refunds
• $1,167,609.53
Subject to MN Statutes, most invoices require Council approval prior to releasing checks for
payment. The day following Council approval, payments will be released unless directed
otherwise. A credit purchasing agreement and policy was approved by Council initially and card
purchases must comply with the policy.
If Council has no questions or comments on the bill and purchase card registers, these can be
approved with the consent agenda. If requested, this item can be removed from consent and
discussed prior to making a motion for approval.
I. Budget Impact: N/A
II. Staff Workload Impact: No additional work.
III. Comprehensive Plan Impact: N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION
City staff recommends approval of bill and purchase card registers as presented.
SUPPORTING DATA
• Bill registers and purchase card registers
Accounts Payable
User:
Printed:
julie.cheney@monticellomn.gov
1/22/2026 8:59 AM
Checks by Date - Summary by Check Date
Check No Check DateVendor NameVendor No Check Amount
1426 CITY OF MONTICELLO 01/15/2026 4,004.87ACH
1593 MN DEPT OF REVENUE - ACH 01/15/2026 84,136.00ACH
2405 WELLS FARGO - Monthly Charges/Returns01/15/2026 20,297.46ACH
2438 VANCO SERVICES LLC 01/15/2026 118.73ACH
2439 DEPT OF EMPLOYMENT & ECON DEVELOPMNT01/15/2026 10,867.99ACH
2811 US BANK CORPORATE PMT SYSTEM 01/15/2026 39,119.44ACH
3241 LINCOLN FINANCIAL GROUP 01/15/2026 2,925.60ACH
5188 HEALTHY CONTRIBUTIONS 01/15/2026 8.95ACH
6041 HEALTHEQUITY INC 01/15/2026 16.40ACH
6761 MY FITNESS REWARDS 01/15/2026 13.25ACH
161,508.69Total for 1/15/2026:
Report Total (10 checks): 161,508.69
Page 1AP Checks by Date - Summary by Check Date (1/22/2026 8:59 AM)
The preceding list of bills payable was reviewed and approved for payment.
Date: 1/26/26 Approved by:_____________________________________
Mayor Lloyd Hilgart
The preceding list of bills payable was reviewed and approved for payment.
Date: 1/26/2026 Approved by:___________________________________
Mayor Lloyd Hilgart
City Council Agenda: 1/26/2026
1
2B. Consideration of approving new hires and departures for City departments
Prepared by:
Human Resources Manager
Meeting Date:
1/26/2026
☒ Consent Agenda Item
☐ Regular Agenda Item
Reviewed by:
N/A
Approved by:
City Administrator
ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to approve new hires and departures for city departments.
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The Council is asked to ratify the attached list of new hires and departures for the City. This
listing includes full-time, part-time, seasonal, and temporary employees. The listing may also
include status changes and promotions.
I. Budget Impact: Positions are generally included in the budget.
II. Staff Workload Impact: If new position, there may be some training involved. If
terminated position, existing staff will cover hours as needed, until replacement.
III. Comprehensive Plan Impact: N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION
City staff recommends approval of new hires and departures as identified on the attached list.
SUPPORTING DATA
• List of new hires and terminated employees.
Name Title Department Hire Date Class
Joshua Holzapfel Streets Worker Streets 1/20/2026 Temporary
Lassana Moore Fitness Instructor MCC 1/21/2026 PT
Name Reason Department Effective Date Class
Levi Berning Involuntary MCC 11/28/2025 PT
Damon Dean Voluntary Liquor Store 1/24/2026 FT
NEW EMPLOYEES
TERMINATING EMPLOYEES
City Council Agenda: 1/26/2026
2C. Consideration of approving the sale or disposal of surplus City property
Prepared by:
N/A
Meeting Date:
1/26/2026
☒ Consent Agenda Item
☐ Regular Agenda Item
Reviewed by:
N/A
Approved by:
N/A
There is no report this City Council Cycle.
City Council Agenda: 1/26/2026
1
2D. Consideration of approving two applications for temporary gambling permits for
Parenting With Grace, Inc. for events on March 7, 2026, at the American Legion, 304
Elm Street, and October 3, 2026, at River City Extreme, 3875 School Blvd.
Prepared by:
City Clerk
Meeting Date:
1/26/2026
☒ Consent Agenda Item
☐ Regular Agenda Item
Reviewed by:
N/A
Approved by:
City Administrator
ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to approve temporary gambling permits for Parenting With Grace, Inc. for a bingo event
on March 7, 2026, at the American Legion, 304 Elm Street, and for a raffle on October 3, 2026,
at River City Extreme, 3875 School Blvd.
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Parenting With Grace submitted two applications for temporary charitable gambling permits.
The first application is to conduct bingo on March 7, 2026, at the American Legion. The second
application is for a raffle to be held on October 3, 2026, at River City Extreme.
Parenting With Grace is located in Buffalo, MN, and provides services to families with children.
Services include supervised visitation, support groups, teen classes, parenting classes, and
anger management classes. Their mission is, “Providing families a safe environment with
education to raise resilient children.”
To receive a permit from the State, the City must approve the application.
I. Budget Impact: N/A
II. Staff Workload Impact: Minimal administrative time.
III. Comprehensive Plan Impact: N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION
City staff recommends approval of the temporary gambling permit.
SUPPORTING DATA
• Application
City Council Agenda: 1/26/2026
1
2E. Consideration of approving the appointment of Erin Stein to the Parks, Arts, and
Recreation Commission
Prepared by:
Park, Arts & Recreation Director
Meeting Date:
1/26/2026
☒ Consent Agenda Item
☐ Regular Agenda Item
Reviewed by:
N/A
Approved by:
City Administrator
ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to approve the appointment of Erin Stein to fill the vacant seat on the Parks, Arts, and
Recreation Commission for the remaining term through December 31, 2026.
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The Parks, Arts & Recreation Commission (PARC) serves as an advisory body to the City Council,
which holds final authority over all board and commission appointments. PARC commissioners
serve three-year terms, with appointments renewed annually at the end of each term.
A vacancy was created by the resignation of Commissioner Daryl Tindle in November 2025. The
City received one application to fill the open seat. PARC interviewed the applicant and
recommends Erin Stein for appointment to complete the remainder of the term, which runs
through December 31, 2026.
I. Budget Impact: N/A
II. Staff Workload Impact: N/A
III. Comprehensive Plan Impact: Ensure continued community representation and
engagement in the Parks, Arts, and Recreation Commission. Timely acceptance of
resignation and recruitment for the open seat promotes transparency, accountability, and
sustained public input in shaping recreational and cultural initiatives. Filling the vacancy
aligns with the plan’s emphasis on inclusive decision-making and maintaining active
advisory bodies that reflect community values.
STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION
City staff recommend approval of the appointment of Erin Stein to the Parks, Arts & Recreation
Commission.
SUPPORTING DATA
• Redacted Application
■ Yes □ No
■ Yes □ No
EMPLOYMENT APPLICATION
City of Monticello
505 Walnut Street
Monticello, Minnesota - 55362
http://www.MonticelloMN.gov (http://www.MonticelloMN.gov)
Stein, Erin, Elizabeth
Parks, Arts, and Recreation Commission Member (Volunteer)
Received: 11/5/25, 1:26
PM
For Official Use Only:
QUAL:________
DNQ:_________
□Experience
□Training
□Other:_______
PERSONAL INFORMATION
POSITION TITLE:
Parks, Arts, and Recreation Commission Member (Volunteer)
Job Number:
2025-00026
NAME: (Last, First, Middle)
Stein, Erin,
PERSON ID:
14562918
ADDRESS: (Street, City, State, Zip Code)
HOME PHONE:
EMAIL ADDRESS:NOTIFICATION PREFERENCE:
Email
DRIVER'S LICENSE:
Yes
State: MN Number:
LEGAL RIGHT TO WORK IN THE
UNITED STATES?:
HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION:
Bachelor's Degree
PREFERENCES
MINIMUM COMPENSATION:
WHAT TYPE OF JOB ARE YOU LOOKING FOR?
Regular
TYPES OF WORK YOU WILL ACCEPT:
Full Time
EDUCATION
SCHOOL NAME:
University of Minnesota Duluth
LOCATION:(City , State)
Duluth, MN
DID YOU GRADUATE?DEGREE RECEIVED:
Bachelor's
MAJOR/MINOR:
Management Information Systems
WORK EXPERIENCE
11/21/25, 9:10 AM OHC - Print Job Application
https://secure.neogov.com/hiringcenter/print/jobapplication/81fbfd907fd5bca2c6d860a80a75bc26062cb1e1b6d325bf/def70248d3810d52625f8ed456f0…1/5
DUTIES:
As the Human Resource Manager I was in charge of many duties. My primary duties were to perform my Human Resource
tasks such as interviews, orientations, training, performance reviews, compliance and payroll. I also managed the cash office
and delivery operations by maintaining cash balancing for the whole store, and delivery schedules of large appliances. As a
retail manager I had to assist with customer service duties and help associates with their human resource needs as well as
their customer service needs.
REASON FOR LEAVING:
Moved closer to family
CERTIFICATES AND LICENSES
Nothing Entered For This Section
SKILLS
OFFICE SKILLS:
Typing: 78 WPM
OTHER SKILLS:
Nothing Entered For This Section
LANGUAGE(S):
Nothing Entered For This Section
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
Nothing Entered For This Section
REFERENCES
REFERENCE TYPE:
Personal
NAME:POSITION:
ADDRESS: (Street, City, State, Zip Code)
EMAIL ADDRESS:PHONE NUMBER:
(763) 350 8402
REFERENCE TYPE:
Professional
NAME:POSITION:
ADDRESS: (Street, City, State, Zip Code)
PHONE NUMBER:
Agency - Wide Questions
1.Are you at least 16 years old?
Yes
2.Are you at least 18 years old?
Yes
11/21/25, 9:10 AM OHC - Print Job Application
https://secure.neogov.com/hiringcenter/print/jobapplication/81fbfd907fd5bca2c6d860a80a75bc26062cb1e1b6d325bf/def70248d3810d52625f8ed456f0…3/5
3.How did you hear about this position?
Other
4.If you marked "Other" please specify.
Job Specific Supplemental Questions
1.Please tell us why you are interested in serving on this Board or Commission?
I love our community and would love to find more ways to get involved and make a difference for the families that call
Monticello home and the visitors enjoying our beautiful city.
2.Please list your qualifications for this volunteer appointment.
Monticello resident I have strong community connections and a general
love for our community.
3.Please describe your community involvement noting any other volunteer boards you are currently serving on or have
served on previously.
I am involved in as well as volunteer opportunities through the schools
I have been involved with the
Royal Ambassador program, the Monticello Chamber of Commerce and many of the events held throughout the year.
By clicking on the 'Accept & Submit' button, I hereby certify that all of the information provided by me in this
application (or any other accompanying or required documents) is correct, accurate and complete to the best of my
knowledge. I understand that the falsification, misrepresentation or omission of any facts in said documents may be
cause for denial of employment or immediate termination of employment regardless of the timing or circumstances
of discovery.
I understand that submission of an application does not guarantee employment. I understand that none of the
documents, policies, procedures, actions, statements of the City of Monticello or its representatives used during the
employment process is deemed a contract of employment, real or implied. In consideration for employment with
the City of Monticello, if employed, I agree to conform to the rules, regulations, policies and procedures of the City
of Monticello at all times and understand that such obedience is a condition of employment.
I understand that if offered a position with the City of Monticello, I may be required to submit to a drug screening
and background check as a condition of employment. I understand that unsatisfactory results from, refusal to
cooperate with, or any attempt to affect the results of these pre-employment tests and checks will result in
withdrawal of any employment offer or termination of employment if already employed.
With my signature below, I am providing the City of Monticello authorization to verify all information I provided
within this application, including contacting current or previous employers. However, I understand that if, in the
Employment Experience section I have answered "No" to the question, "May we contact your current employer?",
contact with my current employer will not be made without my specific authorization.
This application was submitted by Stein, Erin, Elizabeth
Signature________________________________________________________________
11/21/25, 9:10 AM OHC - Print Job Application
https://secure.neogov.com/hiringcenter/print/jobapplication/81fbfd907fd5bca2c6d860a80a75bc26062cb1e1b6d325bf/def70248d3810d52625f8ed456f0…4/5
City Council Agenda: 1/26/2026
1
2F. Consideration of approving a request for Conditional Use Permit for Auto Repair-
Major and a Variance to §153.091 Use-Specific Standards, for door opening to service
area garage on street frontage, for a project in a B-3 (Highway Business) District.
Applicant: Mohammad Awad
Prepared by:
Grittman Consulting, Stephen Grittman,
City Planner
Meeting Date:
1/26/2026
☒Consent Agenda Item
☐Regular Agenda Item
Reviewed by:
Community Development Director,
Community & Economic Development
Coordinator, Chief Building Official
Approved by:
City Administrator
ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to approve a request for a Conditional Use Permit for Auto Repair-Major, subject to the
conditions in Exhibit Z and based on findings in said Resolution PC-2026-02.
Planning Commission unanimously recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit.
The Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, approved a
Variance to allow service area garage doors to front on a public street as related to the Auto
Repair use at their regular January meeting. No appeal to the variance approval was
received; the variance stands as approved.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION
January 27, 2025: Council approved a Conditional Use Permit for Vehicle Sales &
Rental for Rockstone Automotive
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
Property: Legal Description: Lengthy-Contact City Hall
PIDs #: 155027001031, 155027001041
Planning Case Number: 2025-48
Request(s): 1.Conditional Use Permit for Auto Repair-Major
2.Variance to §153.091 Use-Specific Standards, for door
opening to service area garage on street frontage, for a
project in a B-3 (Highway Business) District.
City Council Agenda: 1/26/2026
2
Deadline for Decision: January 18, 2026 (60-day deadline)
March 19, 2026 (120-day deadline) – Extension letter sent
Land Use Designation: Regional Commercial
Zoning Designation: B-3: Highway Business
Overlays/Environmental
Regulations Applicable: Freeway Bonus District
Current Site Uses: Vehicle Sales and Rental Use
Surrounding Land Uses:
North: Vehicle Retail Sales Lot
East: Highway 25
South: Retail Commercial
West: Auto Repair Major
Project Description: The applicant proposes to add Auto Repair-Major as an allowed
use to the current Vehicle Sales Conditional Use Permit applicable
to the property. This amendment will require rearrangement of
interior spaces, along with updates to the existing parking and
circulation plan for the site.
In addition to the CUP request, the City’s zoning regulations
prohibit automobile service bay doors from opening directly
toward a public street. Due to the site’s existing development and
its location to public streets on three sides, the applicant
requested a variance to waive this standard, accommodating
service bay doors opening to the west. The Planning Commission
approved the variance request.
ANALYSIS:
The applicant received a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to occupy the site for vehicle retail sales
approximately one year ago. The applicant made changes to the prior site plan through
improvements to the pavement and circulation on the site, addition of site landscaping, and
building maintenance, among other requirements.
As a component of the approved CUP, the applicant indicated that employee parking would
primarily be accommodated within the building’s service bay areas and along the west side of
the building, adjacent to Sandberg Road.
The revised site plan indicates that the proposed vehicle repair use will retain interior parking
within the service bay uses. Employee parking will include five indoor spaces, three spaces
City Council Agenda: 1/26/2026
3
located directly west of the building, and two parallel spaces along the north side of the
building. In addition, five customer parking spaces are provided along the north side of the
building near the primary public entrance.
The original CUP requires a minimum of 15 onsite parking spaces for customer and employee
parking. The proposed addition of the major auto repair use would add 3 spaces to the
requirement, but this is offset by a reduction in floor area of the vehicle sales portion of the
building by an equal amount. The required number of spaces remains at 15. The revised site
plan provides a total of 16 parking spaces for employees and customers. As a result, the
proposed use does not impact the overall parking requirement, and the allocation of employee
and customer spaces on the revised site plan remains consistent with City standards.
Conditional Use Permit for Major Auto Repair in a B-3 District
The specific requirements applicable to Major Auto Repair are as follows:
(1) Automobile repair - major.
(a) Door opening to service area garage must not face street frontage.
Staff comment: The applicant has applied for a variance from this condition.
(b) Vehicle storage area limited to 50% of floor space of the structure housing the auto
body shop.
Staff comment: No outdoor vehicle storage is provided for on the plan. A
condition is included within Exhibit Z which refers to the site plan as the approved plan
for the use, limiting any outdoor storage of vehicles waiting for repair and specifying
location allowance for repaired vehicles.
(c) All vehicles being serviced and all vehicle parts must be stored inside or in vehicle
storage area.
Staff comment: As noted, no outdoor storage is shown on the plan.
(d) Vehicle storage area shall be enclosed by enclosure intended to screen the view of
vehicles in storage from the outside. Enclosure shall consist of a six-foot high, 100%
opaque fence designed to blend with the auto body shop structure and consisting of
materials treated to resist discoloration.
Staff comment: As noted, no outdoor storage is shown on the plan.
(e) The floor of the vehicle storage area shall consist of asphalt or concrete paving.
Staff comment: This is an existing condition of the building.
(f) All work on vehicles or vehicle parts shall be conducted within an enclosed building.
City Council Agenda: 1/26/2026
4
Staff comment: This is an ongoing operational requirement for the site.
(g) No conditional use permit shall be granted for an auto body shop located within
600 feet of a residential zone existing at the time the conditional use permit is granted.
Staff comment: The nearest residential property is approximately 690 feet to the
west of the site.
The applicant has also added landscaping along the western roadway boundary to visually
screen the service bay doors from the street. This screening is supplemented by the note
above, that access to the bays is via the main parking lot, and not directly out to Sandberg
Road.
Auto Repair-Major is a compatible use of the site under the B-3 (Highway Business) zoning
designation. The purpose of the “B-3” (Highway Business) district is to accommodate limited
commercial and service activities and provide for and limit the establishment of motor vehicle
oriented or dependent commercial and service activities. Two similar principal uses are located
nearby, and adjacent vehicle sales facilities include major auto repair as accessory uses.
Furthermore, given the options for service door placement, orienting the bays toward the
internal local street is preferable to facing the arterial and collector roads on the east and north
of the site.
In summary, the site easily complies with the specific standards required by the zoning
ordinance for major auto repair, with the noted exception of the service bay doors. A variance
for the doors to face Sandberg Road was approved by the Planning Commission.
I. Budget Impact: The applicant submitted the required fee and escrow to cover the costs of
the hearing and review of the applications.
II. Staff Workload Impact: Staff and consulting time for the review of the application will be
coded to the application escrow.
III. Comprehensive Plan Impact: The proposed use is consistent with the Community
Commercial land use designation for the site, which includes service commercial uses such
as car sales, and auto repair businesses.
STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommend approval of the CUP for Auto Repair-Major, including the modifications to the
site’s parking designations as shown on the proposed site plans. Approval should include
confirmation of compliance with the terms of the original Vehicle Sales CUP parking
improvements, specifying site signage designating customer and employee parking, and
circulation markings as required and as shown on the proposed site plan.
City Council Agenda: 1/26/2026
5
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Resolution PC-2026-02
B. Resolution PC-2026-03
C. Aerial Site Image
D. Applicant Narrative
E. Certificate of Survey
F. Plans, Including:
a. Site Plan Circulation & Parking
b. Interior Layout
c. Garage Door Dimensions & Rendering
G. Chief Building Official’s Letter, dated December 29, 2025
H. Monticello Zoning Code Excerpts
I. Monticello 2040 Plan Excerpts
City Council Agenda: 1/26/2026
6
EXHIBIT Z
Conditions of Approval
Conditional Use Permit for Major Auto Repair
Variance from Requirements for Service Bay Door Orientation
PIDs: 155027001031, 155027001041
1. The CUP is conditioned on approval of the variance to accommodate service bay
doors facing a public street.
2. Compliance with the site plan and parking signage of the original CUP granted on
January 27, 2025, with changes to the signage reflecting the proposed site plan
included in the staff report of January 2026.
3. No outdoor storage of vehicles waiting to be serviced shall be allowed on the
site.
4. Vehicles whose service work is completed may occupy employee or customer
parking spaces on a temporary basis if space exists, but not in such a manner
that shifts any parking to the public street.
5. Modification of site parking signage consistent with the site plans accompanying
this application.
6. Compliance with the terms of the Chief Building Official’s letter dated December
29, 2025
7. Comments and recommendations of other Staff and Planning Commission.
2F (1)
2F (2)
2F (3)
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2026-03
APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR
SERVICE DOORS FACING A PUBLIC STREET
AS A COMPONENT OF AUTO REPAIR- MAJOR
IN A B-3, HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT
PIO 155-027-001041; 155-027-001031
WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a request for a Conditional Use Permit for Auto
Repair-Major as an additional use to an existing vehicle sales facility; and
WHEREAS, the proposed facility would alter the existing conditions through modifications
to the sales and display area, as well as altering the locations for designated employee and
customer parking; and
WHEREAS, the City's standard zoning regulations require that for Auto Repair-Major, no
service bay doors may face the public street; and
WHEREAS, the applicant seeks a variance from the prohibition for service doors facing the
public street as required by the City's zoning ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the proposed use would have no other expected impacts on the site; and
WHEREAS, the site is zoned Highway Business (B-3), which allows such use as an accessory
use by Conditional Use Permit; and
WHEREAS, the general land use would be consistent with the long term land use plan for
the City and the location, including the designation of the site for "Community Commercial"
uses; and
WHEREAS, the applicants have provided materials documenting that the proposed use
facilitates long term use of the site for uses in the B-3 zoning district; and
WHEREAS, the applicants have provided materials documenting that the proposed use will
comply with the terms and standards of the zoning ordinance with the recommendations
approved by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 6th , 2026 on the
application and the applicant and members of the public were provided the opportunity to
present information to the Planning Commission; and
1
2F (4)
2F (5)
2F (6)
Request for CUP for Auto Repair/Variance for Door
Legal: Lengthy-Contact City Hall; PIDs: 155027001031 & 155027001041
Created by: City of Monticello
118 ft
2F (7)
2F (8)
2F (9)
2F (10)
2F (11)
2F (12)
2F (13)
2F (14)
2F (15)
2F (16)
2F (17)
( E) Highway Business District, B-3. The purpose of the “B-3” (highway business) district is to provide for limited
commercial and service activities and provide for and limit the establish ment of motor vehicle oriented or dependent
commercial and service activities.
(1) Base lot area. No minimum.
(2) Base lot width. Minimum: 100 ft.
Typical B-3 Lot Configuration
TABLE 3-13: B-3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARD S
Required Yards (in feet)
Max Height
(stories/
ft.)
Max Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)
Max Impe
rvious
(% of gross lot
area)
Fro
nt
Interi
or
Side
Street
Side
Rear
All Uses 30 10 20 20
2 stories
30 feet
[1]
(Reserved)(Reserved)
[1]: Multi-story buildings may be allowed as a conditional use pursuant to §
153.028(D) contingent upon strict adherence to fire safety code provisions as
specified by the International Building Code as adopted in the Monticello City
Code.
2F (18)
Accessory
Structures
- See § 153.092(B) for all general standards and limitations on accessory
structures.
Other
Regulation
to Consult
(not all
inclusive)
- § 153.042, Common District Requirements
- § 153.043(B), Standards Applicable to All Residential Base Zoning Districts
- § 153.060, Landscaping and Screening Standards
- § 153.064, Signs
- § 153.067, Off-Street Parking
- § 153.068, Off-street loading spaces
- § 153.070, Building Materials
(F) Regional Business District, B-4. The purpose of the “B-4” regional business district is to provide for the establishm
ent of commercial and service activities which draw from and serve customers from the entire community or region.
(1) Base lot area. No minimum.
(2) Base lot width. No Minimum.
Typical B-4 Lot Configuration
TABLE 3-14: B-4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Required Yards (in feet)
Max Height
(stories/ Max Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)
Max Impervious
(% of gross lot
2F (19)
LAND USE, GROWTH AND ORDERLY ANNEXATION 36
2018 Correlating
Zoning District
ZONING INFORMATION
2018 Correlating
Zoning District
B-3
Highway
Business District
B-4
Regional
Business District
LAND USE MIX
Commercial
• “Big Box” Stores
• Department Stores
• Hotels
• Restaurants
Recreational
• Plaza
• Public Space
REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC)
The Regional Commercial designation includes large-scale commercial uses serving a regional market, typically on large sites along the Interstate or major arterials roadways such
as State Highway 25. Retail uses within this category usually have large floor areas and high sales volumes and may be considered shopping “destinations” by consumers from the
region. Uses such as furniture and electronic stores, farm supply, home improvement stores, department stores, “big box” retailers, hotels and restaurants are included. Smaller
and more local-serving retail uses, and personal services are generally not appropriate but could be allowed if complementary to a regional use.
VISUAL EXAMPLE
LOT PATTERN DEVELOPMENT FORM
• Floor Area Ratio
(FAR)
0.30 to 0.50
• Height -
1-2 stories, 4 stories
for hotels or office
• Lot Area -
N/A
Primary Mode
Vehicular with
access to collectors
and arterials
Transit or
shuttle service
Secondary Mode
Shared bike/
pedestrian facilities
MOBILITY
2F (20)
City Council Agenda: 1/26/2026
1
2G. Consideration of adopting Resolution 2026-03 accepting improvements and authorizing final
payment of $12,319.00 to Jacon, LLC, for the 2020 Stormwater Project.
Prepared by:
Assistant City Engineer
Meeting Date:
1/26/2026
☒ Consent Agenda Item
☐ Regular Agenda Item
Reviewed by:
Public Works Director/City Engineer,
Finance Director
Approved by:
City Administrator
ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to adopt Resolution 2026-03 accepting improvements and authorizing final payment of
$12,319.00 to Jacon, LLC, for the 2020 Stormwater Project.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION
November 9, 2020: City Council awarded the 2020 Stormwater Improvements contract to
Jacon, LLC in the amount of $462,494.18.
July 12, 2021: City Council approved change order #1 in the amount of $29,675.30.
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The 2020 Stormwater project included expanding the pond between CSAH 39 and Mill Court
as well as extending the paved trail along CSAH 39. The pond was expanded to increase the
freeboard. The following paperwork was recently submitted by the contractor for final
payment to be released:
1. Satisfactory showing that the contractor has complied with the provisions of Minnesota
Statutes 290.92 requiring withholding state income tax (IC134 forms).
2. Evidence in the form of an affidavit that all claims against the contractor by reasons of the
contract have been fully paid or satisfactorily secured (lien waivers).
I. Budget Impact: The project was substantially complete and capitalized in 2023 when the
work was performed. The $12,319 is a reduction of liability and will have no budgetary
impact in 2025 or 2026.
II. Staff Workload Impact: N/A
III. Comprehensive Plan Impact: N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION
City staff recommends approval of the resolution.
City Council Agenda: 1/26/2026
2
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Resolution 2026-03
B. Final Pay Voucher
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-03
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING IMPROVEMENTS AND APPROVING FINAL PAYMENT
OF $12,319 TO JACON, LLC, FOR THE 2020 STORMWATER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, pursuant to a contract with the City of Monticello, Jacon, LLC, was awarded, on
November 9, 2020, for the 2020 Stormwater Improvement Project; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF MONTICELLO, MINNESOTA that the work
completed under said contract is hereby accepted and approved and that the Mayor and City Clerk
are hereby directed to issue a proper order for the final payment on such contract subject to receipt
of the following:
1) Satisfactory showing that the contractor has complied with the provisions of Minnesota
Statutes 290.92 requiring withholding state income tax (IC134);
2) Evidence in the form of an affidavit that all claims against the contractor by reasons of the
contract have been fully paid or satisfactorily secured (lien waivers);
ADOPTED BY the Monticello City Council this 26th day of January, 2026.
CITY OF MONTICELLO
___________________________
Lloyd Hilgart, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Jennifer Schreiber, City Clerk
h:\mtce\w13120865\7_construction\e_pay applications\pa 6 - final\2026-01-13 120865 pa 6-final to city.docx
January 13, 2026
Mr. Matt Leonard, P.E., City Engineer / Public Works Director
City of Monticello
505 Walnut Street
Monticello, MN 55362
Re: 2020 Stormwater Improvements
City of Monticello, Minnesota
Project No.: W13.120865
Dear Matt:
Please find enclosed Final Pay Application No. 6 for the above referenced project. I have reviewed the
Pay Application and recommend payment be made in the amount shown. If you agree, please sign the
Pay Estimate and return one copy to the Contractor with payment and one to me for our files.
Sincerely,
Bolton & Menk, Inc.
Justin Kannas, P.E.
Municipal Project Manager - Principal Engineer
JLK/jk
Enclosures
From
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
a.X
b.X
c.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Name:Justin Kannas, P.E.Name:
Name: Name:
2020 Stormwater Improvements
to
Original Contract Price
Total Work completed and materials stored to date
(Sum of Column G Lump Sum Total and Column J Unit Price Total)
Balance to finish, including retainage (Line 3 - Line 4)
11/17/2025
Application Date:11/26/2025
462,494.18$
30,300.00$
481,925.42$
492,794.18$
Retainage
Current Contract Price (Line 1 + Line 2)
Net change by Change Orders
-$
-$
12,319.00$
Contractor's Application for Payment
Application No.:6 (Final)
City of Monticello
Jacon, LLC
Bolton & Menk, Inc.
2020 Stormwater Improvements
Owner's Project No.:
Engineer's Project No.:
Other Project No.:
Application Period:
Contract:
Owner:
11/11/2021
Contractor:
Engineer:
Project:
W13.120865
Recommended by Engineer
Name: Title:
Work Completed
Stored Materials
Total Retainage (Line 5.a + Line 5.b)
Amount eligible to date (Line 4 - Line 5.c)
Less previous payments (Line 6 from prior application)
Amount due this application
481,925.42$
-$
By:
Title:
The undersigned Contractor certifies, to the best of its knowledge, the following:
(1) All previous progress payments received from Owner on account of Work done under the Contract have been applied on
account to discharge Contractor's legitimate obligations incurred in connection with the Work covered by prior Applications for
Payment;
(2) Title to all Work, materials and equipment incorporated in said Work, or otherwise listed in or covered by this Application for
Payment, will pass to Owner at time of payment free and clear of all liens, security interests, and encumbrances (except such as
are covered by a bond acceptable to Owner indemnifying Owner against any such liens, security interest, or encumbrances); and
(3) All the Work covered by this Application for Payment is in accordance with the Contract Documents and is not defective; and
(4) The provisions of M. S. 290.92 have been complied with and that all claims against me by reason of the Contract have been
paid or satisfactorily secured.
469,606.42$
-$
$ 481,925.42
$ -
Approved by Owner
Signature:Date:
JACON, LLC
Contractor's Certification
Contractor:
Date:Date:
Date:
By:
Title:
Approved by Funding Agency
By:
Title:
By:
Title:
Date:
Municipal Project Manager - Principal
EJCDC C-620 Contractor's Application for Payment
(c) 2018 National Society of Professional Engineers for EJCDC. All rights reserved.
12/30/2025
Sarah Jensen Account Manager
12/30/2025
W13.120865
6 (Final) From 11/11/21 to 11/17/25 11/26/25
A C D E F G H I J K L
Item Quantity Units
Unit Price
($)
Value of Bid Item
(C X E)
($)
Estimated
Quantity
Incorporated in
the Work
Value of Work
Completed to Date
(E X G)
($)
1 1.00 LUMP SUM 75,927.00 75,927.00 1.00 75,927.00 75,927.00 100% -
2 1.00 LUMP SUM 1,485.00 1,485.00 1.00 1,485.00 1,485.00 100% -
3 28.00 TREE 275.00 7,700.00 67.00 18,425.00 18,425.00 239% (10,725.00)
4 4.00 EACH 400.00 1,600.00 4.00 1,600.00 1,600.00 100% -
5 335.00 LIN FT 10.00 3,350.00 335.00 3,350.00 3,350.00 100% -
6 1.00 EACH 750.00 750.00 1.00 750.00 750.00 100% -
7 60.00 LF 3.00 180.00 80.00 240.00 240.00 133% (60.00)
8 215.00 SY 3.00 645.00 251.00 753.00 753.00 117% (108.00)
9 230.00 LF 8.00 1,840.00 230.00 1,840.00 1,840.00 100% -
10 30.00 LF 50.00 1,500.00 30.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 100% -
11 1.00 EACH 500.00 500.00 1.00 500.00 500.00 100% -
12 2,475.00 CU YD 5.00 12,375.00 2,173.00 10,865.00 10,865.00 88% 1,510.00
13 14,236.00 CU YD 5.88 83,707.68 14,714.00 86,518.32 86,518.32 103% (2,810.64)
14 500.00 CU YD 7.00 3,500.00 50.00 350.00 350.00 10% 3,150.00
15 470.00 CU YD 12.00 5,640.00 470.00 5,640.00 5,640.00 100% -
16 235.00 CU YD 24.00 5,640.00 235.00 5,640.00 5,640.00 100% -
17 300.00 CU YD 29.00 8,700.00 - - - 8,700.00
18 215.00 SY 39.00 8,385.00 251.00 9,789.00 9,789.00 117% (1,404.00)
19 205.00 TON 105.00 21,525.00 181.00 19,005.00 19,005.00 88% 2,520.00
20 45.00 LF 56.00 2,520.00 62.00 3,472.00 3,472.00 138% (952.00)
21 15.00 LF 60.00 900.00 16.00 960.00 960.00 107% (60.00)
22 55.00 SF 45.00 2,475.00 55.00 2,475.00 2,475.00 100% -
23 20.00 SF 62.00 1,240.00 20.00 1,240.00 1,240.00 100% -
24 20.00 LIN FT 50.00 1,000.00 20.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 100% -
25 8.00 LIN FT 55.00 440.00 8.00 440.00 440.00 100% -
26 119.00 LIN FT 450.00 53,550.00 119.00 53,550.00 53,550.00 100% -
27 52.00 LIN FT 280.00 14,560.00 52.00 14,560.00 14,560.00 100% -
28 100.00 LIN FT 39.00 3,900.00 100.00 3,900.00 3,900.00 100% -
29 1.00 EACH 550.00 550.00 1.00 550.00 550.00 100% -
30 6.00 EACH 1,000.00 6,000.00 6.00 6,000.00 6,000.00 100% -
31 2.12 LIN FT 1,800.00 3,816.00 2.12 3,816.00 3,816.00 100% -
32 14.21 LIN FT 3,200.00 45,472.00 14.21 45,472.00 45,472.00 100% -
33 3.00 EACH 700.00 2,100.00 3.00 2,100.00 2,100.00 100% -
34 436.00 LIN FT 25.00 10,900.00 436.00 10,900.00 10,900.00 100% -
35 5.00 EACH 450.00 2,250.00 5.00 2,250.00 2,250.00 100% -
36 9.52 LIN FT 800.00 7,616.00 9.52 7,616.00 7,616.00 100% -
37 1.00 EACH 750.00 750.00 1.00 750.00 750.00 100% -
38 2.61 LIN FT 650.00 1,696.50 3.00 1,950.00 1,950.00 115% (253.50)
39 150.00 SQ FT 6.00 900.00 150.00 900.00 900.00 100% -
40 49.00 CU YD 70.00 3,430.00 82.65 5,785.50 5,785.50 169% (2,355.50)RIPRAP CLASS IV
PVC CLEANOUT
SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE DES 4007
SANITARY CASTING ASSEMBLY
CONSTRUCT 6" OUTSIDE DROP
4" INSULATION
TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (2,B) (TRAIL)
CONNECT TO EX STORM SEWER
CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE, DES 48-4020
CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE, DES 108-4020
STORM SEWER CASTING ASSEMBLY
6" PVC SANITARY SEWER SDR-26
15" RC PIPE SEWER CLASS V
54" RC PIPE SEWER CLASS II
43"X26" ARCH RC PIPE STORM
18" CS PIPE
18" CS PIPE ARPON
Contractor's Application for PaymentProgress Estimate - Unit Price Work
Owner's Project No.:
Engineer's Project No.:
Contractor's Project No.:
City of Monticello
Bolton & Menk, Inc.
Jacon, LLC
2020 Stormwater Improvements
2020 Stormwater Improvements
Owner:
Application Date:Application Period:Application No.:
Engineer:
Contractor:
Project:
Contract:
B
Original Contract
% of
Value of
Item
(J / F)
(%)
Balance to Finish (F
- J)
($)
MOBILIZATION
TRAFFIC CONTROL
Description
Work Completed
Materials
Currently Stored
(not in G)
($)
Work Completed
and Materials
Stored to Date
(H + I)
($)
Contract Information
Bid Item
No.
CLEARING & GRUBBING
REMOVE PIPE APRON
SALVAGE AND INSTALL 15" STORM PIPE
SALVAGE AND INSTALL STORM PIPE APRON
COMMON EXCAVATION - TO REMAIN ON-SITE (P)
COMMON EXCAVATION - TO BE HAULED OFF SITE (P)
SUBGRADE EXCAVATION (EV)
REMOVE SANITARY SEWER PIPE
REMOVE SANITARY MANHOLE
REMOVE CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER
REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
SALVAGE SPLIT RAIL FENCE
B612 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER
B618 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER
7" CONCRETE WALK (PEDESTRIAN RAMPS)
TRUNCATED DOMES
12" RC PIPE SEWER CLASS V
SELECT GRANULAR BORROW (CV)
AGGREGATE BASE, CL 5
STABILIZING AGGREGATE (EV)
BITUMINOUS PATCH
Unit Price
EJCDC C-620 Contractor's Application for Payment
(c) 2018 National Society of Professional Engineers for EJCDC. All rights reserved.1 of 3
W13.120865
6 (Final) From 11/11/21 to 11/17/25 11/26/25
A C D E F G H I J K L
Item Quantity Units
Unit Price
($)
Value of Bid Item
(C X E)
($)
Estimated
Quantity
Incorporated in
the Work
Value of Work
Completed to Date
(E X G)
($)
Contractor's Application for PaymentProgress Estimate - Unit Price Work
Owner's Project No.:
Engineer's Project No.:
Contractor's Project No.:
City of Monticello
Bolton & Menk, Inc.
Jacon, LLC
2020 Stormwater Improvements
2020 Stormwater Improvements
Owner:
Application Date:Application Period:Application No.:
Engineer:
Contractor:
Project:
Contract:
B
% of
Value of
Item
(J / F)
(%)
Balance to Finish (F
- J)
($)Description
Work Completed
Materials
Currently Stored
(not in G)
($)
Work Completed
and Materials
Stored to Date
(H + I)
($)
Contract Information
Bid Item
No.
41 38.00 CU YD 70.00 2,660.00 - - - 2,660.00
42 225.00 LF 25.00 5,625.00 220.00 5,500.00 5,500.00 98% 125.00
43 10.00 EACH 25.00 250.00 - - - 250.00
44 1,450.00 LIN FT 2.85 4,132.50 728.00 2,074.80 2,074.80 50% 2,057.70
45 5.00 EACH 400.00 2,000.00 5.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 100% -
46 450.00 CU YD 25.00 11,250.00 150.00 3,750.00 3,750.00 33% 7,500.00
47 0.16 ACRE 1,600.00 256.00 0.16 256.00 256.00 100% -
48 0.70 ACRE 1,500.00 1,050.00 0.70 1,050.00 1,050.00 100% -
49 0.06 ACRE 1,500.00 90.00 0.06 90.00 90.00 100% -
50 0.90 ACRE 1,000.00 900.00 0.90 900.00 900.00 100% -
51 5,000.00 LB 1.25 6,250.00 5,000.00 6,250.00 6,250.00 100% -
52 1.83 ACRE 1,750.00 3,202.50 1.83 3,202.50 3,202.50 100% -
53 2,950.00 SQ YD 2.30 6,785.00 2,461.00 5,660.30 5,660.30 83% 1,124.70
54 160.00 LIN FT 3.30 528.00 160.00 528.00 528.00 100% -
55 1.00 EACH 1,500.00 1,500.00 1.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 100% -
56 1.00 ALLOWANCE 5,000.00 5,000.00 1.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 100% -
462,494.18$ 451,625.42$ -$ 451,625.42$ 98% 10,868.76$
TEMPORARY ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
IRRIGATION ADJUSTMENTS
SEED MIXTURE 25-141, FERTILIZER TYPE 3
HYDRULIC MATRIX, TYPE BONDED FIBER
TEMPORARY STABILIZATION
EROSION CONTROL BLANKET
DITCH CHECK TYPE BIOLOG
STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION
COMMON TOPSOIL BORROW (LV)
SEED MIXTURE 36-711, FERTILIZER TYPE 3
SEED MIXTURE 35-241, FERTILIZER TYPE 3
SEED MIXTURE 35-241, FERTILIZER TYPE 3
RIPRAP CLASS V
INSTALL SALVAGED SPLIT RAIL FENCE
FURNISH & INSTALL SPLIT RAIL FENCE POSTS
SILT FENCE TYPE MACHINE SLICED
Original Contract Totals
Unit Price
EJCDC C-620 Contractor's Application for Payment
(c) 2018 National Society of Professional Engineers for EJCDC. All rights reserved.2 of 3
W13.120865
6 (Final) From 11/11/21 to 11/17/25 11/26/25
A C D E F G H I J K L
Item Quantity Units
Unit Price
($)
Value of Bid Item
(C X E)
($)
Estimated
Quantity
Incorporated in
the Work
Value of Work
Completed to Date
(E X G)
($)
Contractor's Application for PaymentProgress Estimate - Unit Price Work
Owner's Project No.:
Engineer's Project No.:
Contractor's Project No.:
City of Monticello
Bolton & Menk, Inc.
Jacon, LLC
2020 Stormwater Improvements
2020 Stormwater Improvements
Owner:
Application Date:Application Period:Application No.:
Engineer:
Contractor:
Project:
Contract:
B
% of
Value of
Item
(J / F)
(%)
Balance to Finish (F
- J)
($)Description
Work Completed
Materials
Currently Stored
(not in G)
($)
Work Completed
and Materials
Stored to Date
(H + I)
($)
Contract Information
Bid Item
No.
4,400.00 SF 7.00 30,800.00 4,400.00 30,800.00 30,800.00 100% -
1.00 LS (500.00) (500.00) 1.00 (500.00) (500.00) 100% -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
30,300.00$ 30,300.00$ -$ 30,300.00$ 100% -$
492,794.18$ 481,925.42$ -$ 481,925.42$ 98% 10,868.76$
Change Orders
CHANGE ORDER 1 - SHOREFLEX ARMORING
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES - 1 DAY
Project Totals
Change Order Totals
Original Contract and Change Orders
Unit Price
EJCDC C-620 Contractor's Application for Payment
(c) 2018 National Society of Professional Engineers for EJCDC. All rights reserved.3 of 3
City Council Agenda: 1/26/2026
1
2H. Consideration of authorizing the purchase of a 2024 HAMM HD14iVV asphalt roller for
$65,833.83 and declaring the 2002 Stone Wolf Pack 3100 roller as surplus
Prepared by:
Street Superintendent
Meeting Date:
1/26/2026
☒Consent Agenda Item
☐Regular Agenda Item
Reviewed by:
PW Director/City Engineer, Finance
Director
Approved by:
City Administrator
ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to approve the purchase of a 2024 HAMM HD14iVV asphalt roller from RDO Equipment
in the amount of $65,833.83 and declaring the 2002 Stone Wolf Pack 3100 roller as surplus.
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The City has a 2002 Stone Wolf Pack 3100 roller that has been in service since 2003, and staff
propose to replace it with a 2024 HAMM HD14iVV asphalt roller. As the City of Monticello
undertakes larger street overlay projects, a heavier asphalt roller is needed to improve
compaction and enhance overall project quality.
Quotes were obtained for three comparable rollers using the state contract and Sourcewell.
Caterpillar CB4.4-MB $83,604.59 Ziegler, St. Cloud, MN
Bomag 138AD-5 $77,391.00 Ruffridge Johnson, Centerville, MN
Hamm HD 14iVV $68,833.83 RDO Equipment, Rogers, MN
The City rented the Hamm roller for the 90th Street paving project last year. RDO Equipment’s
quote includes a $5,120 credit for the 2025 roller rental and a $3,000 trade-in allowance for the
2002 Stone Wolf Pack 3100 roller, resulting in a final purchase cost to $65,833.83.
I.Budget Impact: The 2026 budget includes $90,000 for this replacement in the Central
Equipment Fund.
II.Staff Workload Impact: The proposed asphalt roller facilitates completing paving
projects in-house which has an associated increase to staff workload.
III.Comprehensive Plan Impact: N/A
City Council Agenda: 1/26/2026
2
STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommend approving the purchase of the 2024 HAMM HD14iVV asphalt roller for
$65,833.83
SUPPORTING DATA
A.Verbal Written Quote summary sheet
B.Quote and specifications
2H (1)
2H (2)
2H (3)
2H (4)
2H (5)
2H
(6
)
2H
(7
)
2H
(8
)
2H
(9
)
2H
(1
0
)
2H
(1
1
)
City Council Agenda: 1/26/2026
1
4A. Consideration of approving Resolution 2026-02 adopting the Monticello Industrial
Alternative Urban Areawide Review and adopting the Monticello Industrial
Alternative Urban Areawide Review Mitigation Plan for a 550-acre industrial
development study area including a light industrial scenario and a technology campus
scenario that could include a data center and appurtenant uses.
Prepared by:
Community Development Director,
WSB – City Environmental Review
Consultant
Meeting Date:
1/26/2026
☐ Consent Agenda Item
☒ Regular Agenda Item
Reviewed by:
City Public Works Director/Engineer,
City Attorney
Approved by:
City Administrator
ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to approve Resolution 2026-02 adopting the Monticello Industrial Alternative Urban
Areawide Review and the Monticello Industrial Alternative Urban Areawide Review Mitigation
Plan, based on findings in said resolution.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION
April 28, 2025: Council authorized Kimley Horn to prepare a Draft Alternative Urban
Areawide Review (AUAR) Order and Scoping Document and conduct an
AUAR as related to a proposed 550-acre technology campus proposed by
Monticello Tech LLC
April 28, 2025: Council authorized WSB to review and provide regulatory coordination
for the AUAR Scoping Document and AUAR process as related to a
proposed 550-acre technology campus proposed by Monticello Tech LLC
October 13, 2025: Council accepted the Monticello Industrial AUAR Scoping Document and
Ordered the Preparation of the Monticello Industrial AUAR
November 10, 2025: City Council authorized distribution of the Draft Monticello Industrial
AUAR and Mitigation Plan for public comment
December 15, 2025: Joint Council and Planning Commission Workshop for review of comment
on the Draft Monticello Industrial AUAR and Mitigation Plan
City Council Agenda: 1/26/2026
2
REFERENCE AND BACKGROUND
The City Council is asked to adopt the Monticello Industrial Alternative Urban Areawide Review
(AUAR) and Mitigation Plan. In doing so, the City Council is determining whether the AUAR
includes the appropriate level of analysis for the development scenarios evaluated, and
whether the AUAR follows the required process for review and comment. Consideration of
adoption also includes acceptance of the Mitigation Plan, which represents the City’s
commitment to prevent and address potentially significant environmental impacts from
development projects within the study area, as identified in the AUAR.
The Monticello Industrial AUAR was prepared by Kimley Horn and reviewed by City staff and
the City’s consulting environmental firm, WSB.
The AUAR process was initiated in early 2025 following the presentation of a development
concept at a public City Council and Planning Commission workshop. Monticello Tech LLC
proposed development of a technology campus, including data center uses, on 550 acres
located within the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area. The proposed development area is
located south of 85th Street and east of TH 25, adjacent to the current city boundary. Following
the workshop, property owners within the proposed development area submitted a petition for
annexation.
Pursuant to Minnesota Rules part 4410.3610, development of a technology campus as
presented in the concept met the State’s mandatory requirements for an environmental
review. The City of Monticello was designated as the Responsible Government Unit (RGU) for
this process.
The City determined that an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) should be prepared in
compliance with the State’s environmental review requirements to evaluate the development
concept presented.
AUARs are a type of environmental review process that has attributes of both an Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (EAW) and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Local
governments use an AUAR as an alternative form of environmental review to understand how
different development scenarios will affect the environment of their community before the
development occurs. An AUAR is not a project approval document; rather, it is a planning tool
used to evaluate the environmental impacts of proposed development and identify specific
mitigation strategies to manage and regulate those impacts.
Given Monticello Tech proposed a development concept rather than a specific project, the
AUAR provides the City with the data necessary to make local planning and zoning decisions
considering the maximum development impact of the proposed concept. The AUAR process
also allows the City to consider the impact of other development scenarios. The AUAR does not
provide approval of any specific development project within the study area.
City Council Agenda: 1/26/2026
3
The Monticello Industrial AUAR review began with an initial scoping process, resulting in the
preparation and City Council acceptance of a Scoping Document. The Scoping Document
identified two potential development scenarios for evaluation in the full AUAR. The first
scenario reflects the Monticello Tech concept and evaluates a technology campus with up to 3
million square feet of technology or data center uses. The second scenario is consistent with
the Monticello 2040 Comprehensive Plan for other types of light industrial uses, such as
warehousing, production and assembly, and evaluates the development of up to 5 million
square feet of these types of light industrial uses.
A public comment period for the Scoping Document was held from August 5 through
September 4, 2025. During this period, the City received four agency comments and 78 public
comments. These comments were incorporated into the Scoping Document and informed
preparation of the full AUAR. The City Council accepted the Scoping Document in October of
2025 and ordered preparation of the full Monticello Industrial AUAR.
The Draft Monticello Industrial AUAR was prepared to meet the state’s requirements for this
type of environmental review. It includes environmental impact analysis in each specified
category and a detailed mitigation plan stating required studies, permit, plans, and other
strategies necessary to address potential impacts for either development scenario. It also notes
where additional environmental study will be required when future project details are better
understood.
Following the preparation of the Draft Monticello Industrial AUAR, the document was
authorized for public review and comment. The 30-day public comment period ran from
November 18 through December 18, 2025. The draft AUAR was published in the Environmental
Quality Board (EQB) Monitor and made available on the City’s website. An informational open
house and presentation on the AUAR occurred on November 20, 2025.
In December 2025, the City Council and Planning Commission held a joint workshop to review
comments received and provided additional feedback. At the close of the comment period, the
City received five agency comments and 51 public comments. All comments were evaluated,
and responses are documented in a comment response appendix with the revised AUAR.
Following incorporation of the comments, the revised Monticello Industrial AUAR was
published in the EQB Monitor and posted on the City website. The document was also
redistributed to required agencies for a 10-business day objection period from January 6
through January 21, 2026. Two additional agency comment letters were received during this
period. These comments were addressed in the response document, and in the AUAR
document content and Mitigation Plan as applicable. No agency objections were received.
Upon adoption by the City Council, the final Monticello Industrial AUAR and Mitigation Plan will
be published in the EQB Monitor and posted to the City’s website. The AUAR will be used to
City Council Agenda: 1/26/2026
4
manage and mitigate development impact consistent with the development scenarios. The
AUAR will also guide other required environmental reviews as detailed in the document.
An adopted AUAR is valid for a period of five years. If development is not complete within that
timeframe, the AUAR must be updated to reflect development activity and mitigation measures
implemented within the study area. If development is proposed within the study area that is
more intense or inconsistent with the AUAR, the AUAR will require amendment.
I. Budget Impact: Monticello Tech LLC is responsible for the expenses incurred by Kimley
Horn’s preparation of the AUAR. The costs for WSB to review the AUAR and manage the
required notification and comment process on behalf of the City are be covered through
an escrow agreement with Monticello Tech LLC.
II. Staff Workload Impact: Extensive staff time from departments including administration,
community development, engineering, and parks & recreation has been necessary to
ensure a comprehensive planning document at the conclusion of the study.
III. Comprehensive Plan Impact: The Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan’s Implementation
Chapter includes a goal which supports growth into the “Orderly Annexation Area when
development is proposed or planned contiguous to 0city boundaries, sensitive open
space lands are protected and thoughtfully incorporated into the development pattern,
and the land is serviced by appropriate utility and transportation systems” and when
development plans “minimize impacts to mature landscaping, water features and
environmentally sensitive areas.” An AUAR process considers these factors for
development scenarios and provides mitigation strategies in this interest.
STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION
City staff recommend adopting the final Monticello Industrial AUAR and Mitigation Plan. The
AUAR provides a foundation for planning and further study of development impacts within the
study area. The Mitigation Plan is a critical tool for managing the impacts of either development
scenario within the study area.
SUPPORTING DATA
A. Resolution 2026-02
B. Monticello Industrial Alternative Urban Areawide Review, Final
C. Monticello Industrial AUAR Schedule
D. Environmental Quality Board “Quick Reference: Alternative Urban Areawide Review”
E. Environmental Quality Board AUAR Content & format Guidance
F. Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan, Excerpt
CITY OF MONTICELLO
WRIGHT COUNTY, MINNESOTA
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-02
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ADOPTION OF THE
FINAL ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREAWIDE REVIEW (AUAR) AND MITIGATION PLAN
FOR THE MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL AREA
WHEREAS, the City of Monticello ordered the preparation of an Alternative Urban Areawide
Review (AUAR) for the proposed Monticello Industrial Study Area; and
WHEREAS, an AUAR has been completed for the project pursuant to Minnesota Rules 4410
which identifies and assesses the environmental impacts and mitigation measures associated with the
Monticello Industrial Study Area; and
WHEREAS, the Study Area is located on approximately 550 acres east of Highway 25, west of
Edmonson Ave NE, and south of 85th Street; and
WHEREAS, the AUAR was completed pursuant to Minnesota Rule 4410.3610; and
WHEREAS, the AUAR was distributed for the required 30-day comment, revised based on
comments, and redistributed for the required 10-day objection period; and
WHEREAS, no objections to the AUAR were received; and
WHEREAS, comments received on the AUAR have generated information adequate to
determine mitigation measures associated with the potential development in this area; and
WHEREAS, the comments received and the City’s responses to these comments are included in
the public record for the AUAR; and
WHEREAS, development of the Monticello Industrial Study Area is expected to comply with all
Monticello and review agency standards as well as the mitigation measures outlined in the AUAR;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Monticello, MN that the City of
Monticello adopts the Monticello Industrial Area AUAR and Mitigation Plan dated January 2026.
ADOPTED this 26th day of January 2026, by the City Council of the City of Monticello.
MONTICELLO CITY COUNCIL
By: ___________________________
Lloyd Hilgart, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Jennifer Schreiber, City Clerk
JANUARY 2026
Monticello Industrial AUAR
FINAL ALTERNATIVE URBAN
AREAWIDE REVIEW
PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY:
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 i
Table of Contents
1. Project Title ..................................................................................................................................... 3
2. Proposer .......................................................................................................................................... 3
3. RGU ................................................................................................................................................. 3
4. Reason for Preparation .................................................................................................................... 4
5. Project Location ............................................................................................................................... 4
6. Project Description .......................................................................................................................... 7
7. Climate Adaption and Resilience .................................................................................................... 11
8. Cover Types ................................................................................................................................... 17
9. Permits and Approvals Required .................................................................................................... 21
10. Land Use ........................................................................................................................................ 23
11. Geology, Soils, and Topography/Land Forms .................................................................................. 34
12. Water Resources ........................................................................................................................... 39
13. Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes ................................................................................ 72
14. Fish, Wildlife, Plant Communities, and Sensitive Ecological Resources (Rare Features) ................... 77
15. Historic Properties ......................................................................................................................... 83
16. Visual ............................................................................................................................................. 84
17. Air ................................................................................................................................................. 85
18. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions/Carbon Footprint ...................................................................... 86
19. Noise ............................................................................................................................................. 89
20. Transportation ............................................................................................................................... 92
21. Cumulative Potential Effects ........................................................................................................ 101
22. Other Potential Environmental Effects ......................................................................................... 102
Mitigation Plan .................................................................................................................................... 104
List of Tables
Table 1: Development Scenarios .............................................................................................................. 8
Table 2: Climate Considerations and Adaptions ..................................................................................... 13
Table 3: Existing and Proposed Cover Types........................................................................................... 18
Table 4: Green Infrastructure ................................................................................................................ 19
Table 5: Trees ........................................................................................................................................ 19
Table 6: Anticipated Permits and Approvals ........................................................................................... 21
Table 7: Study Area Future Land Use Designations Purpose and Allowed Uses ....................................... 24
Table 8: Soil Types ................................................................................................................................. 36
Table 9: Wetland Delineation Summary ................................................................................................. 42
Table 10: Wells within AUAR Study Area ................................................................................................ 45
Table 11. Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity (Domestic).................................................................. 51
Table 12: Existing Landlocked Basin Summary ....................................................................................... 56
Table 13: Proposed Conditions Runoff Volume Summary..................................................................... 59
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 ii
Table 14: Proposed Stormwater Basin Sizing Summary .......................................................................... 59
Table 15: Scenario 1 Water Demand Phasing ......................................................................................... 66
Table 16: Scenario 2 Water Demand Phasing ......................................................................................... 67
Table 17: Scenarios 1 and 2 Water Appropriations Summary ................................................................. 68
Table 18. Wetland Buffers ..................................................................................................................... 70
Table 19: MPCA “What’s in My Neighborhood?” Sites ........................................................................... 72
Table 20. Historic Sites .......................................................................................................................... 83
Table 21: Construction Emissions .......................................................................................................... 87
Table 22: Annual Operational Emissions ................................................................................................ 88
Table 23. Minnesota Industrial Operations Noise Standards .................................................................. 91
Table 24: Trip Generation Forecasts ...................................................................................................... 94
Table 25: Existing and Projected Intersection LOS .................................................................................. 96
Table 26: Mitigation Plan ..................................................................................................................... 105
List of Figures
Figure 1: USGS Map ................................................................................................................................. 5
Figure 2: AUAR Study Area ...................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 3: Development Scenario 1 ........................................................................................................... 9
Figure 4: Development Scenario 2 ......................................................................................................... 10
Figure 5: Average Annual Temperate in Wright County.......................................................................... 12
Figure 6: Average Annual Precipitation in Wright County ....................................................................... 12
Figure 7: Existing Cover Types ................................................................................................................ 20
Figure 8: Existing Land Use .................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 9: Future Land Use ...................................................................................................................... 33
Figure 10: Soil Types .............................................................................................................................. 38
Figure 11: Surface Water Resources ...................................................................................................... 40
Figure 12: Wetland Delineation Summary.............................................................................................. 41
Figure 13: Groundwater Resources ........................................................................................................ 46
Figure 14: Proposed Sewer Service Options ........................................................................................... 52
Figure 15. Existing Drainage Conditions ................................................................................................. 62
Figure 16. Proposed Stormwater Basins for Scenario 1 .......................................................................... 63
Figure 17. Proposed Stormwater Basins for Scenario 2 .......................................................................... 64
Figure 18: Proposed Water Infrastructure.............................................................................................. 69
Figure 19: What’s in My Neighborhood Listings ..................................................................................... 74
Figure 20: Traffic Study Intersections ................................................................................................... 100
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 iii
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Wetland Delineation Reports
Appendix B: StreamStats Report
Appendix C: Agency Project Correspondence
Appendix D: Greenhouse Gas Quantifaction
Appendix E: Traffic Impact Analysis
Appendix F: Comment Responses
Appendix G: Comments
Appendix H: Objection Period Comment Responses
Appendix I: Adoption Resolution
List of Acronyms
Aggregate Caliper Inch (ACI)
Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR)
Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT)
Asbestos and Regulated Materials (ARM)
Asbestos Containing Material (ACM)
A-weighted Decibels (dB(A))
Best Management Practices (BMP)
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)
Climate Mapping for Resilience and Adaptation (CMRA)
Climate Resilience Evaluation and Awareness Tool (CREAT)
CO2 equivalent (CO2e)
County Road (CR)
County State Aid Highway (CSAH)
Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA)
Diameter at Breast Height (DBH)
Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA)
Ecosystems Research and Development Bureau (ERDB)
Electromagnetic Field (EMF)
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 iv
Electronic Waste (e-waste)
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Environmental Site Assessment (ESA)
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Gallons per Day (GPD)
Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
Hertz (Hz)
Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)
Land Use Code (LUC)
Level of Service (LOS)
Light Industrial Park (LIP)
Methane (CH4)
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
Million Gallons per Day (MGD)
Million Gallons per Year (MGY)
Minnesota Department of Health (MDH)
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MnDNR)
Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT)
Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB)
Minnesota Office of the State Archeologist (OSA)
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
Minnesota Routine Assessment Method (MnRAM)
Minnesota State Highway XX (MN XX)
Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Minnesota Statewide Historic Inventory Portal (MnSHIP)
MN Public Utilities Commission (PUC)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA)
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 v
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)
Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP)
Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS)
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
Nitrogen Trifluoride (NF3)
Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
Noise Area Classification (NAC)
Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL)
Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
Planning and Conservation (IPaC)
Rapid Infiltration Basin (RIB)
Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU)
Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs)
Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
Subsurface Sewage Treatment Systems (SSTS)
Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6)
Total Phosphorus (TP)
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA)
Transition Area (TA)
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Vehicles per Day (VPD)
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)
Water Resources Management Plan (WRMP)
What’s In My Neighborhood (WIMN)
World Health Organization (WHO)
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 3
Alternative Urban Areawide Review
This Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) follows the format of an Environmental Assessment
Worksheet (EAW) (December 2022 version). Where the AUAR guidance provided by the Minnesota
Environmental Quality Board (EQB) indicates that an AUAR response should differ notably from what is
required for an EAW, the guidance is noted in italics.
1.PROJECT TITLE
Monticello Industrial AUAR
2.PROPOSER
Proposer: Monticello Tech, LLC
Contact Person: Nick Frattalone
Address: 3205 Spruce Street
City, State, ZIP: Little Canada, MN 55117
Phone: 651-484-0448
Email: nickf@frattaloneco.com
3.RGU
RGU: City of Monticello
Contact Person: Angela Schumann
Title: Community Development Director
Address: 505 Walnut Street
City, State, ZIP: Monticello, MN 55362
Phone: 763-271-3224
Email: angela.schumann@MonticelloMN.gov
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 4
4. REASON FOR PREPARATION
AUAR Guidance: Not applicable to an AUAR.
The Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) process provides local governments with the
opportunity to evaluate how different land uses may impact the community's environment and to
plan how to manage and mitigate those impacts. It allows environmental analysis before major
development occurs, helping guide local planning and zoning decisions. More information can be
found on the Environmental Quality Board’s website: https://www.eqb.state.mn.us/environmental-
review/overview/alternative-urban-areawide-review-auar-process
5. PROJECT LOCATION
County: Wright
City/Township: Monticello
PLS Location (¼, ¼, Section, Township, Range): Sections 22, 23, 26, 27, Township 121N, Range 25W
Watershed (81 major watershed scale): Mississippi River – St. Cloud and North Fork Crow River
Watersheds
Tax Parcels: 213100224203, 213100224100, 213100224400, 213100233100, 213100224300,
213100224401, 213100234403, 213100233300, 213100271300, 213100271100, 213100262300,
213100262400, 213100262200, 213100271301, 213100271302, 213100233101.
At a minimum, attach each of the following to the AUAR:
US Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project boundaries (see
Figure 1)
• Map depicting the boundaries of the AUAR and any subdistricts used in the AUAR analysis
(see Figure 2 through Figure 4)
• List of data sources, models, and other resources (from the Item-by-Item Guidance: Climate
Adaptation and Resilience or other) used for information about current Minnesota climate
trends and how climate change is anticipated to affect the general location of the project
during the life of the project (as detailed below in Item 7)
• Cover type map as required for Item 8 (see Figure 7)
• Land use and planning maps as required in conjunction with Item 0 (see Figure 8 and
Figure 9)
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 5
Figure 1: USGS Map
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 6
Figure 2: AUAR Study Area
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 7
6. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
AUAR Guidance: Instead of the information called for on the EAW form, the description section of an
AUAR should include the following elements for each major development scenario included:
• Anticipated types and intensity (density) of residential and commercial/warehouse/light
industrial development throughout the AUAR area.
• Infrastructure planned to serve development (roads, sewers, water, stormwater system,
etc.). Roadways intended primarily to serve as adjoining land uses within an AUAR area are
normally expected to be reviewed as part of an AUAR. More “arterial” types of roadways
that would cross an AUAR area are an optional inclusion in the AUAR analysis; if they are
included, a more intensive level of review, generally including an analysis of alternative
routes, is necessary.
• Information about the anticipated staging of various developments, to the extent known,
and of the infrastructure, and how the infrastructure staging will influence the development
schedule.
The AUAR study area encompasses an area totaling approximately 550 acres on 16 parcels in
Monticello Township, Wright County, Minnesota (shown on Figure 2). Monticello Tech, LLC is
proposing to develop the study area from existing farmland to a technology campus or light
industrial uses. The AUAR provides scenario-based planning for the study area given that the
development potential and individual impacts of development uses in either scenario are highly
variable. The intent of the AUAR is to recognize the maximum development capacity impact of both
scenarios and identify mitigation measures that may be taken to compensate for those impacts.
Two scenarios are evaluated in the AUAR as outlined in Table 1. Scenario 1 includes multiple
buildings for a total of up to 3,000,000 square feet of a proposed technology park/campus
development (see Figure 3). Scenario 1 could include a data center, research and design facilities,
technology, laboratories or research park uses. These types of uses are expected to also include the
need to build additional electrical substations, transmission lines, and backup generators. For the
purposes of impact evaluation, this scenario assumes a data center campus, with 5-10 principal
buildings, approximately 200,000 – 400,000 square feet per building with a few ancillary support
buildings. Scenario 1 is expected to follow a similar life cycle of other typical light industrial
development. With most technology park campuses, including data centers, the exterior shell of the
buildings are anticipated to be used over many decades, while the internal components are
upgraded periodically as technology advances.
Scenario 2 includes multiple buildings for a total of up to 5,000,000 square feet of light industrial
land use based on the City of Monticello’s adopted land use plan (see Figure 4). Scenario 2 could
include process and production manufacturing which uses moderate amounts of partially processed
materials, warehousing and distribution, machine shops, computer technology including office and
research and development facilities (but not including data centers as a singular principal use),
professional and corporate offices and industrial engineering facilities. For the purposes of impact
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 8
evaluation, this scenario assumes a light industrial park type development that could include 5-20
buildings that range from approximately 20,000-1 million square feet. Generally, light industrial
development within Scenario 2 is expected to occur in the range of 50,000 – 500,000 square foot
buildings. See item 8 for more information on cover types and what is included in the
buildable/developable area for both scenarios.
The proposed development within the AUAR study area is anticipated to begin construction in 2027.
Under Scenario 1, a developer would build out the AUAR study area in multiple phases, ending in
approximately 2034. Under Scenario 2, multiple developers would build out the AUAR study area in
multiple phases, ending in approximately 2045.
Development of the study area for both scenarios would include new municipal infrastructure,
including water service, sewer, stormwater, streets, and utilities. All new services would be
extensions or additions to existing infrastructure or upgrades to existing systems to support the new
development. Both scenarios are anticipated to require approximately two miles of trunk water and
trunk sanitary sewer extensions to serve the site along Fallon Avenue NE and 85th Street NE
extending as directed by the City to the property boundary. Additionally, a trunk water extension
may be routed along Edmonson Ave NE. Additional infrastructure needs would be built in general
conformance with the City of Monticello 2040 Comprehensive Plan and City specifications.
Scenario 1 would require significantly lower operational traffic and potentially higher
water/wastewater demands compared to Scenario 2. However, both scenarios present variable
impacts to water/wastewater demand based on the types of uses developed in either scenario.
Scenario 2 would require additional public roadway network improvements as compared to
Scenario 1. Scenario 2 is anticipated to include a new entrance to Highway 25. Both scenarios are
expected to incorporate similar screening/buffering elements to minimize any potential land use
conflicts.
Given the variability between and within the two identified scenarios, the AUAR identifies additional
study and mitigation requirements specific to development for each or both scenarios.
Table 1: Development Scenarios
Component Scenario 1 Scenario 2 (Comp Plan)
Technology Park (square feet) 3,000,000 (31% of study area) -
Light Industrial (square feet) - 5,000,000 (42% of study area)
Total (square feet) 3,000,000 5,000,000
Total Project Area 550 acres 550 acres
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 9
Figure 3: Development Scenario 1
Note: the location of utilities/streets
shown are conceptual only
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 10
Figure 4: Development Scenario 2
Note: the location of utilities/streets
shown are conceptual only
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 11
7. CLIMATE ADAPTION AND RESILIENCE
Describe the climate trends in the general location of the project (see guidance: Climate
Adaptation and Resilience) and how climate change is anticipated to affect that location
during the life of the project.
Trends in temperature, precipitation, flood risk, and cooling degree days are described below for
the general project location. Some of the climate projections summarized below use shared
socioeconomic pathways (SSPs), which are greenhouse gas concentration scenarios used by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The SSPs reflect assumptions about how
industrialization, fossil fuel dependence, land use, and population density evolve in the future.
The assumptions are based on population growth, urbanization, economic growth, technological
advances, greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions, energy supply and demand, land-use changes,
and more.1 SSP 245 is an intermediate scenario in which emissions decline after peaking around
2040, and SSP 370 is a high-emission scenario in which emissions continue to rise through the
21st Century.
Temperature
According to the National Centers for Environmental Information, the annual daily average
temperature in Wright County from 2005 to 2024 was 44.7°F.2 According to the Minnesota
Climate Mapping and Analysis Tool, the annual daily average temperature in the study area is
projected to increase to 48.0°F from 2040 to 2059 under an intermediate emissions pathway
(SSP 245). 3 In 2080-2099, annual daily average temperature is projected to further increase to
51.0°F and 53.2°F under an intermediate (SSP 245) and high emissions pathway (SSP 370),
respectively.
1 More information on SSPs is available at: https://climate.umn.edu/sites/climate.umn.edu/files/2023-
06/ClimateProjectionPrimer_Compiled_CoverPage.pdf
2 National Centers for Environmental Information, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. County Time Series.
Available at: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/county/time-series.
3 Minnesota CliMAT. University of Minnesota. Available at
https://app.climate.umn.edu/?output_type=modelVal&scenario=ssp370_2080-2099&model=ensemble&variable=tmax-
degF&time_frame=yearly&aoi=none#intro_pane
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 12
Figure 5: Average Annual Temperate in Wright County
Precipitation
According to the National Centers for Environmental Information, the annual average
precipitation in Wright County from 2005 to 2024 was 29.2 inches.4 According to the EPA
Climate Resilience Evaluation and Awareness Tool (CREAT) Climate Change Scenarios Projection
Map, there is a projected 2.6% to 13.8% increase in 100-year storm intensity by 2035 and a
projected 5.2% to 26.9% increase in 100-year storm intensity by 2060 for the AUAR study area.5
Figure 6: Average Annual Precipitation in Wright County
4 National Centers for Environmental Information, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. County Time Series.
Available at: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/county/time-series.
5 CREAT Climate Change Scenarios Projection Map. US EPA. Available at
https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=3805293158d54846a29f750d63c6890e
40
42
44
46
48
50
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Avg. Temp. (F)
Year
Average Annual Temperature in Wright County
20
25
30
35
40
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Avg. Precip. (in)
Year
Average Annual Precipitation in Wright County
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 13
Localized Flood Risk
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Climate Mapping for Resilience
and Adaptation (CMRA) tool 6 includes climate projections for numerous variables related to
various climate hazards. In this tool, the lower emissions scenario is a possible future in which
humans drastically reduce their use of fossil fuels, reducing global emissions of heat-trapping
gases to zero by 2040. This scenario is known as RCP 4.5. The higher emissions scenario is a
possible future in which humans continue increasing emissions of heat-trapping gases from
fossil fuels through 2100. This scenario is known as RCP 8.5. For a census tract containing the
AUAR study area, this tool projects the average annual total precipitation in 2015-2044 to
increase to 30.7 inches with lower emissions and 31.1 inches with higher emissions. In 2035-
2064, the average annual total precipitation is projected to further increase to 31.1 inches with
lower emissions and 31.2 inches with higher emissions.
Cooling Degree Days
As defined by the National Weather Service, cooling degree days, which are often used as a
proxy to estimate cooling needs for buildings, can be examined as a baseline and projected
exposure indicator under the RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 scenarios. Cooling degree days are indexed
units, not actual days, which roughly describe the demand to heat or cool a building. Cooling
degree days accumulate on days warmer than 65°F when cooling is required. For example, if a
weather station recorded an average daily temperature of 78°F, cooling degree days for that
station would be 13.
According to Heat Vulnerability in Minnesota,7 which provides county level data, the number of
cooling degree days in 2019 for the county containing the AUAR study area (Wright County) was
381. The number of cooling days in 2050 for Wright County is projected to be 448 and 598 for
RCP 4.5 and 8.5, respectively.
For each resource category in the table below, describe the project’s proposed activities and
how the project’s design will interact with those climate trends. Describe proposed
adaptations to address the project effects identified.
Table 2: Climate Considerations and Adaptions
Resource
Category
Climate
Considerations
Project Information
Climate Change
Risks and
Vulnerabilities
Adaptions (Scenario 1 and Scenario 2)
Project Design Aspects of
building
architecture/
materials
choices and site
In the coming
decades, the
location of the study
area is anticipated
to experience:
• Majority of technology park
developers have sustainability goals
around water, energy, carbon,
recycling that would be implemented
on this site (applies to Scenario 1).
6 NOAA Climate Mapping for Resilience and Adaption tool. Available at https://resilience.climate.gov/#assessment-tool.
7 Heat Vulnerability in Minnesota. Minnesota Department of Health and the University of Minnesota. Available at
https://maps.umn.edu/climatehealthtool/heat_app/.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 14
Resource
Category
Climate
Considerations
Project Information
Climate Change
Risks and
Vulnerabilities
Adaptions (Scenario 1 and Scenario 2)
design may
impact
conditions in
the surrounding
area, including
changing
climate zones,
temperature
trends, and
potential for
extended heat
waves.
• Increased
annual
temperature.
• Increased
annual
precipitation
and more
frequent heavy
rainfall events.
• Increased freeze
thaw cycles.
• Energy efficient building shells,
appliances, equipment and lighting
would be incorporated into the
building design to minimize overall
energy needs with rising cooling
demand.
• Proposed native trees and
landscaping would reduce runoff and
mitigate heat island effect and
increased energy/water costs for
cooling.
• Parking areas would be evaluated to
reduce impervious areas within the
AUAR study area to mitigate
potential increases in precipitation.
• A chloride management plan would
be implemented per any state and
local guidelines or requirements.
Chloride conscious design would be
considered to minimize salt usage by
the development. This could include
considering potential locations of
snow melt, ice formation, and tree
shading.
• Addition of pathways and
plannedfuture roundabouts at
Minnesota State Highway 25 and 85th
Street and the intersection of Fallon
Avenue and School Boulevard will
reduce vehicle emissions from
stalling vehicles (that would typically
occur at a stop sign or signal) and
encourage pedestrian activity.
Land Use Loss of tree
cover, removal
of wetlands,
increasing
severity of
storms,
increased
frequency of
• Development of
the study area
will convert the
land use from
agriculture to
industrial uses,
increasing
impervious
surfaces within
• Design of the site, greenway, and
stormwater management facilities
will be used to reduce the risk of
flooding in the AUAR study area.
Infiltration areas will be used to
improve water quality and reduce
stormwater runoff in the project
vicinity.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 15
Resource
Category
Climate
Considerations
Project Information
Climate Change
Risks and
Vulnerabilities
Adaptions (Scenario 1 and Scenario 2)
freeze/thaw
transitions
the study area
as well as
demand for
utility and
energy services.
• Portions of the
proposed
development
may experience
flooding during
extreme rain
events.
• Design of the site will incorporate
buffer requirements and preservation
of wetlands or woodlands as required
by the City ordinance and/or to the
extent practical.
Water
Resources
Current
Minnesota
climate trends
and anticipated
climate change
in the general
location of the
project may
influence water
resources.
• Water resources
in the general
project area
may become
warmer, and
increase in
volume due to
increased
temperatures
and runoff.
There may be
more
evaporation and
water available
when it rains
leading to an
increase in the
flood potential.
• It is projected
that there will
be more severe
storm events
with high,
intense rain
amounts which
will require
drainage
systems to be
adequately
maintained to
• Developer will consider using native
plants and perennials for landscaping
and stormwater features to absorb
water and reduce the water demand
for irrigation.
• Developer will use native plants and
perennials for landscaping adjacent
to water resource buffers
• If using groundwater, water reuse
systems such as cycling water, will be
implemented for cooling purposes to
reduce water usage (applies to
Scenario 1).
• Stormwater Best Management
Practices (BMP) shall meet criteria for
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA) water quality requirements.
• Stormwater BMP's shall be designed
to meet the City of Monticello’s
criteria for rate control as well as
runoff volume reduction.
• Stormwater BMP’s will be designed
to maintain stormwater runoff rates
at or below the level of existing
conditions.
• The precipitation depth for the 100-
year, 24-hour storm is anticipated to
increase by 20% by the end of the
century based on the paper
Equipping Municipalities with Climate
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 16
Resource
Category
Climate
Considerations
Project Information
Climate Change
Risks and
Vulnerabilities
Adaptions (Scenario 1 and Scenario 2)
accommodate
for the increase
in water
volume.
Change Data to Inform Stormwater
Management.8 The runoff volume
and rates would increase
proportionally to the precipitation
depth assuming the same land use
and storm duration. Stormwater
BMPs should be conservatively
designed to account for this increase
in runoff volume. Stormwater
conveyance system should be
designed to account for the increase
in peak flow.
• Water efficient irrigation design will
be considered for any landscape
irrigation systems.
• Green infrastructure systems will be
included in site development. This
could be infiltration basins,
infiltration trenches, rainwater
gardens, bioretention areas without
underdrains, or vegetated swales
with impermeable check dams.
• Additional adaptations discussed in
Item 12.
Contamination
/ Hazardous
Materials/
Wastes
Current
Minnesota
climate trends
and anticipated
climate change
in the general
location of the
project may
influence the
potential
environmental
effects of
generation
/use/ storage of
hazardous
The proposed
development is not
anticipated to
generate hazardous
waste or materials.
Any potential
technology campus
and light industrial
uses may require
storage of
hazardous materials
and wastes.
Design of the site would ensure
placement of any potential storage of
hazardous materials and wastes would
not be in floodplain areas or result in
contamination.
8 Equipping Municipalities with Climate Change Data to Inform Stormwater Management. Available at:
https://conservancy.umn.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/e29c1999-088a-4958-b68f-c201153f4884/content.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 17
Resource
Category
Climate
Considerations
Project Information
Climate Change
Risks and
Vulnerabilities
Adaptions (Scenario 1 and Scenario 2)
waste and
materials.
Fish, Wildlife,
Plant
Communities,
and Sensitive
Ecological
Resources
(Rare Features)
Current
Minnesota
climate trends
and anticipated
climate change
in the general
location of the
project may
influence the
local species
and suitable
habitat.
Suitable habitat for
species may become
unsuitable due to
land use changes,
increased
temperature, and
increased runoff.
• Climate-appropriate native plantings
and stormwater BMPs will provide
suitable habitat for small mammals,
insects, and bird species.
• Integration of a future greenway
corridor will provide for additional
habitat and species connectivity.
8. COVER TYPES
AUAR Guidance: The following information should be provided:
• A cover type map, at least at the scale of a USGS topographic map, depicting:
o Wetlands (identified by Circular 39 type)
o Watercourses (rivers, streams, creeks, ditches)
o Lakes (identify public waters status and shoreland management classification)
o Woodlands (break down by classes where possible)
o Grassland (identify native and old field)
o Cropland
o Current development
• An overlay map showing anticipated development in relation to the cover types. This map
should also depict any “protection areas,” existing or proposed, that will preserve sensitive
cover types. Separate maps for each major development scenario should be generally
provided.
The AUAR study area is approximately 550 acres of cropland, forest, wetland, open water,
impervious surface, and grassland. See Table 3 for the complete acreage of each cover type within
the AUAR study area. There are few existing buildings and structures within the study area that
include some single-family homes and some farmstead buildings and structures. These cover types
were determined by reviewing recent aerial photography and wetland boundaries were determined
during two field delineations completed June 2024 and April 2025.
The proposed cover types for the two scenarios are included in Table 3. Of the buildable area for
Scenario 1 (listed as impervious in the Table 3 below), 3 million square feet would be buildings,
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 18
approximately 4-4.5 million square feet would include driveways, parking, access roads, generators,
equipment yard and the remainder would be pervious areas such as landscaping, buffer areas and
stormwater. Of the buildable area for Scenario 2.5 million square feet would be buildings,
approximately 4-5 million square feet would be parking and circulation areas and the remainder
would be pervious area such as landscaping, buffer areas, and stormwater.
Protected elements, including wetland impacts and buffer/protection areas, are shown on the
proposed scenarios maps for Scenarios 1 and 2, which are shown on Figure 3 and Figure 4. For
Scenario 1, the proposed Rapid Infiltration Basin (RIB) system (see Item 12.b. i for more information
on the RIB) is anticipated to be 15 to 20 acres in total area and could be located in several of the
cover types listed in Table 3 such as lawn/landscaping or other infiltration areas. The system is
anticipated to be comprised of four cells with a bottom area of each cell being approximately 3.5 to
4.5 acres in size based on preliminary soil information. Actual size will depend on the developers’
flow rates and results of more in-depth soil testing.
Site development of either scenario would be required to follow city landscaping ordinances.
Landscaping for both scenarios is recommended to include the use of green infrastructure to
enhance existing wetland function, preserve existing natural features, and mitigate stormwater
runoff. Green infrastructure systems include infiltration basins, infiltration trenches, rainwater
gardens, bioretention areas without underdrains, vegetated swales with impermeable check dams.
The project proposer will use native plants in landscape design and will maintain existing significant
floodplain and wetland complexes as feasible. The proposed Wooded/Forest, Brush/Grassland, and
Lawn/Landscaping cover types account for the proposed greenway transecting the site. The acreage
of green infrastructure systems proposed for the two scenarios is included in Table 3 and Table 4.
Table 3: Existing and Proposed Cover Types
Cover Type Existing
(acres)
Scenario 1
(acres)
Scenario 2
(acres)
Wetlands and Shallow Lakes (less than 2 meters
deep) 30.75 22.26 29.49
Rivers/Streams 0 ln ft 0 ln ft 0 ln ft
Wooded/Forest 28 25.25 25.25
Brush/Grassland 36.25 1 1
Cropland 444 0 0
Livestock Rangeland/Pastureland 0 0 0
Lawn/Landscaping 0 289.49 262.26
Green Infrastructure (total from Table 4) 0 33 39
Impervious Surface 11 171 232
Other (Stormwater Pretreatment and Detention
Ponds) 0 8 17
Total 550 acres 550 acres 550 acres
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 19
Table 4: Green Infrastructure
Green Infrastructure Before
(acres)
Scenario 1
(acres)
Scenario 2
(acres)
Constructed Infiltration Systems (infiltration basins,
infiltration trenches, rainwater gardens, bioretention areas
without underdrains, vegetated swales with impermeable
check dams)9
0 33 39
Total 0 33 39
Table 5: Trees
Trees Scenario 1
(acres)
Scenario 2
(acres)
Area of Mature Trees Removed During Development10 15 25
New Trees Planted (acres)11 15 25
Any hardwood tree 6 inches or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), softwood tree 8 inches or more
in DBH, or conifer over 12 feet in height must be replaced at a rate of 1:1 aggregate caliper inch (ACI) to
removed DBH inches per Ordinance 847 which amends Chapter 153.061 of the Monticello Code of
Ordinances.
9 Based on preliminary stormwater requirement calculations based on estimated impervious surface area.
10 Tree clearing will be limited as much as feasible to support the proposed development scenarios. Tree clearing will be
restricted to the winter months when migratory birds are not likely to be present (November 1 – March 31). If winter tree
clearing is not feasible, technical assistance from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be obtained before any trees or shrubs
are removed.
11 Exact number to be determined as design plans advance. Higher quality trees will be preserved to the extent practicable as
site design advances.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 20
Figure 7: Existing Cover Types
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 21
9. PERMITS AND APPROVALS REQUIRED
AUAR Guidance: A listing of major approvals (including any comprehensive plan amendments and
zoning amendments) and public financial assistance and infrastructure likely to be required by the
anticipated types of development projects should be given for each major development scenario.
This list will help orient reviewers to the framework that will protect environmental resources. The
list can also serve as a starting point for the development of the implementation aspects of the
mitigation plan to be developed as part of the AUAR.
Table 6: Anticipated Permits and Approvals
Unit of Government Type of Application Status
Federal
US Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) Section 404 Permit To be applied for, if applicable
State
Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency
Section 401 Water Quality Certification To be applied for, if applicable
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Stormwater Permit
for Construction Activities
To be applied for, if applicable
Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit To be applied for, if applicable
Construction Contingency Plan and
Response Action Plan approval To be applied for, if applicable
Notice of Intent of Demolition To be applied for, if applicable
Industrial Wastewater Permit To be applied for, if applicable
Significant Industrial User Permit To be applied for, if applicable
Construction Stormwater Permit To be applied for, if applicable
Fuel Storage Tank To be applied for, if applicable
Air Permit To be applied for, if applicable
Discharge Permit To be applied for, if applicable
Environmental Assessment Worksheet To be applied for, if applicable
Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources (MnDNR)
Temporary Groundwater Appropriation
Permit for Construction Dewatering
To be applied for, if applicable
Water Appropriation Permit
Amendment
To be applied for, if applicable
Public Waters Work Permit To be applied for, if applicable
Minnesota Department of Health
Water Main Installation Permit To be applied for, if applicable
Notification of Intent to Perform a
Demolition
To be applied for, if applicable
Notification of Asbestos Related Work To be applied for, if applicable
Water Tower and Well(s) Approval To be applied for, if applicable
Minnesota Department of
Transportation Right-of-Way Permit To be applied for, if applicable
Plumbing Review To be applied for, if applicable
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 22
Unit of Government Type of Application Status
Minnesota Department of Labor
Industry Electrical Permit To be applied for, if applicable
County
Wright County
WCA Review and Approval, pending
annexation
To be applied for, if applicable
Right-of-Way Permit To be applied for, if applicable
Subsurface Sewage Treatment System
Abandonment Permit
To be applied for, if applicable
City
City of Monticello
Preliminary/Final Plat To be applied for, if applicable
Sign Permit To be applied for, if applicable
Building Permit To be applied for, if applicable
Site Plan Approval To be applied for, if applicable
Conditional Use Permit To be applied for, if applicable
Right-of-Way Permit To be applied for, if applicable
WCA Review and Approval To be applied for, if applicable
Zoning Map Amendment To be applied for, if applicable
Demolition Permit To be applied for, if applicable
AUAR Adoption In process
Erosion Control, Grading, and
Stormwater Permit
To be applied for, if applicable
Planned Unit Development To be applied for, if applicable
Annexation
Subject to Orderly Annexation
Agreement with Monticello
Township
Note for the potential for additional permits/approvals for Scenario 1:
Additional environmental reviews may be necessary, which are the responsibility of either the city or the
project proposer, should potential improvements and supporting infrastructure for either development
scenario exceed mandatory environmental thresholds. The local utility company will design and obtain
development permit and approvals needed for any potential grid infrastructure projects that are
required for Scenario 1 through the MN Public Utilities Commission (PUC). If either scenario results in a
proposed project that anticipates the need for more than 1,000,000 gallons of fuel storage for backup
generators and/or may exceed the threshold for air emissions, a separate Environmental Assessment
Worksheet (EAW) will be required for these components of the project per Minnesota Rules 4410.4300.
The specific number of generators that would trigger this requirement for a project is variable based on
the type of generator and size of the belly tank; however, typically this would be in the range of 100-200
generators. A separate EAW with MPCA as the RGU could also be required if a project triggers the need
for a sewer extension with over 2 million GPD of water. For Scenario 1, a separate EAW with MPCA as
the RGU would also be required for the proposed Rapid Infiltration Basin system.
Note for both scenarios:
When land is annexed to the City limits, increased regulations will apply such as zoning, subdivision,
stormwater and water management.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 23
10. LAND USE
Describe:
i. Existing land use of the site as well as areas adjacent to and near the site, including
parks, trails, and prime or unique farmlands.
The AUAR study area is in a semi-rural area just south of the City of Monticello, in
Monticello Township, Wright County, Minnesota. The study area consists of 16 existing
parcels. The study area is generally bounded by 85th Street NE to the north, Edmonson
Avenue NE on a portion of the property to the east, and parcel boundaries to the west,
southeast, and south. Land uses adjacent to the study area include single family and
agricultural to the north, sparse single-family residences with mostly agricultural uses to
the east and west, and natural areas including woodland, grassland, and wetlands. A
single-family neighborhood is planned for development within 3-5 years to the east of
Edmonson Avenue.
There are no existing parks within the study area or immediate vicinity. Bertram Chain
of Lakes Regional Park is located approximately three miles northwest of the study area
boundary. A greenway corridor is planned per the City’s adopted Natural Resource
Inventory & Assessment. The alignment of the greenway should coincide with other
existing or added natural features on the site.
According to the Web Soil Survey for the study area 3.3 percent is mapped as prime
farmland, 2.8 percent would be prime farmland if drained, and 77 percent of the study
area is considered farmland of statewide importance.12
ii. Planned land use as identified in comprehensive plans (if available) and any other
applicable plan for land use, water, or resource management by a local, regional,
state, or federal agency.
Wright County Northeast Quadrant Land Use Plan
Wright County adopted the Northeast Quadrant Land Use Plan in 2007 13. The Northeast
Quadrant Land Use Plan was developed to provide a framework for shaping future
growth of the Northeast Quadrant of Wright County, which include the Buffalo,
Monticello, and Rockford Townships. Anticipated phasing for future development in the
AUAR study area is predicted to occur between 2020 and 2040. The study area is
identified as Transition Area (TA) in the 2007 Monticello Township Land Use Plan.14 The
purpose of the Transition Area is to properly manage the land at the urban/rural fringe.
Management of these areas consists of identifying and designating areas to
economically and efficiently accommodate growth pressures. The proper management
12 USDA. 2024. Web soil Survey. Available at: https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.
13 Northeast Quadrant Land Use Plan. Available at: https://www.co.wright.mn.us/DocumentCenter/View/236/Northeast-
Quadrant-Land-Use-Plan---Adopted-07-31-07-PDF.
14 Monticello Township. 2007. Monticello Land Use Plan. Available at:
https://www.co.wright.mn.us/DocumentCenter/View/235/Monticello-Township-Land-Use-Plan-Map-PDF
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 24
of these areas will avoid premature annexation, prohibit large lot residential
development that would make provision of municipal services unnecessarily expensive,
and limit the possibility of incompatible future land uses.15 The Plan notes that orderly
annexation agreements provide more detailed plans for annexation areas.
City of Monticello 2040 Comprehensive Plan
The City of Monticello adopted the Monticello 2040 Comprehensive Plan in 2020.16 The
plan is centered around three important themes: Sustainability, Community Health, and
Sense of Place. The Plan focuses on land use, growth, and orderly annexation; mobility
and connectivity; economic development; parks, pathways, and open space; and
community character, art, design, facilities, and infrastructure. The Plan covers the
geographic area of the City’s current municipal boundary as well as the Monticello
Orderly Annexation Area. The study area is completely within the Monticello Orderly
Annexation Area and is planned to be annexed into the city. The study area has the land
use designation of Light Industrial Park (see Figure 9). See Table 7 for a description of
this land use designation and allowed uses.
According to the plan, areas currently within the City limits adjacent to the study area
have been designated for future commercial or residential uses, with an identified
industrial land use to the northwest directly across 85th Street. The southern boundary
of the study area is also the southern boundary of the City’s Orderly Annexation Area.
The 2040 Plan includes appendix studies for municipal utilities, including water and
sanitary sewer systems.
The city has plans for a park south of the study area, which is intended as city-owned
and available for public use with a trail along the wetland edge.
Table 7: Study Area Future Land Use Designations Purpose and Allowed Uses
Land Use
Designation Purpose Allowed Uses
Light Industrial
Park (LIP)
To promote a strong industrial
business sector represented by
increased jobs and tax revenue
generated for the City of
Monticello.
Process and production manufacturing which
uses moderate amounts of partially processed
materials, warehousing and distribution,
research and development, medical
laboratories, machine shops, computer
technology, professional and corporate offices
and industrial engineering facilities.
“Computer technology” includes active
technology uses dominated by office and
research-oriented businesses. The Light
Industrial Designation accommodates Data
Center (or similar “Technology Campus”)
15 Northeast Quadrant Land Use Plan. Available at: https://www.co.wright.mn.us/DocumentCenter/View/236/Northeast-
Quadrant-Land-Use-Plan---Adopted-07-31-07-PDF
16 City of Monticello. 2020. Monticello 2040 Vision and Plan . Available at: Complete-Monticello-2040-Comprehensive-Plan-PDF
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 25
Land Use
Designation Purpose Allowed Uses
development for passive computer storage
and processing only when specific elements
are demonstrated. Consideration of these uses
in the LIP areas shall be subject to the
following review requirements, among others
as determined on a case-by-case basis:
a. The City’s 2040 Plan recognizes data
centers as a singularly unique land use due
to size and scope.
b. Data center use locations will not create
conflict with other land uses, especially
residential land uses, through off-site
impacts including unusual amounts of
noise, lights, odors, or other similar
aspects. Data center users will
demonstrate site conditions that meet this
condition and are consistent with other
light industrial development.
c. Where data center development creates
shortages in land supply, utility services,
electric generation service to the broader
area, or any other impacts on the City of
Monticello or its neighboring
communities, and which are not
specifically mitigated by the data center
developer and its associated partners, the
City is under no obligation to
accommodate the use within any land use
district or location, or through any land
use process.
d. Data center uses shall demonstrate
convincingly that its burden on municipal
services, infrastructure, or fiscal condition
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 26
Land Use
Designation Purpose Allowed Uses
is completely mitigated by the data center
project and its developers, and such
mitigation is sustainable by its subsequent
owners, users, and other related entities.
e. The data center will not inhibit future
growth; it will accommodate and facilitate
the extension of efficient and orderly
municipal infrastructure to the edge of the
development property consistent with the
City’s plans for growth.
f. Full and clear assurances from both the
data center use and the electric utility
provider that data center development
will not create threats of power loss to the
community, nor limit the city’s other
growth and development interests in the
future.
Source: City of Monticello. 2020. Monticello 2040 Chapter 3: Land Use, Growth and Orderly
Annexation. https://www.ci.monticello.mn.us/DocumentCenter/View/313/Chapter-3---Land-Use-
Growth-and-Orderly-Annexation-PDF.
Monticello Orderly Annexation Agreement
The City and Monticello Township have established an Orderly Annexation Agreement
providing for the annexation of specific land area within Monticello Township. The
current agreement extends through January 1, 2040. The agreement outlines the
triggering events for annexation. The study area is within the orderly annexation area
covered by the agreement.
Natural Resource Inventory & Assessment
The City of Monticello has adopted a Natural Resource Inventory & Assessment which
identifies and inventories existing natural resources within the Monticello Orderly
Annexation Area and assesses the resource’s quality. The document is used to plan for
parks, trails and integration of natural resources into development planning.
The Natural Resource Inventory and Assessment identifies a conceptual future
greenway corridor17 that bisects the study area east-west. From this plan, the purpose
of the greenway corridor is to connect the major parks of the City and future annexation
area. The locations for these corridors were identified based on the presence of natural
land cover features, existing parks and open spaces, locations of Areas of Community
Importance, and locations of conservation areas. Greenway corridors could provide
17 Source: City of Monticello. 2008. Natural Resource Inventory and Assessment.
https://www.monticellomn.gov/DocumentCenter/View/270/Natural-Resource-Inventory-Assessment-Conceptual-Greenway-
Corridors-PDF
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 27
connections between and among natural open spaces and parks via trails and walkways
and can be natural areas such as wildlife corridors with no developed trail system or
other disturbance within the corridor.
Wright County Trail & Bikeway Plan
In addition to consistency with the City’s Natural Resource Inventory & Assessment, the
greenway corridor evaluation should consider long-range regional trail planning as
identified in the Wright County Trail & Bikeway Plan. The plan is designed to connect the
County with non-motorized trails and bikeways which will provide opportunities for
residents to increase their physical activity and improve their health. The Plan envisions
the County creating a network of offroad trails and on-road bikeways that connect and
complement city and township trails and bikeways.
iii. Zoning, including special districts or overlays such as shoreland, floodplain, wild and
scenic rivers, critical area, agricultural preserves, etc.
AUAR Guidance: Water-related land use management districts should be delineated on
appropriate maps, and the land use restrictions applicable in those districts should be
described. If any variances or deviations from these restrictions within the AUAR area
are envisioned, this should be discussed.
Zoning
The study area is currently within Monticello Township and is being used for agricultural
purposes. Once annexed into the City of Monticello municipal limits, a zoning change
would be required for future development and would be required to be consistent with
the City of Monticello’s Comprehensive Plan. The Monticello Zoning Ordinance includes
a Wetland Overlay District, which would apply to wetlands within the study area.
The city is also in the process of creating a Data Center Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Zoning Ordinance that would create a review and plan submittal process specific to the
data center use and its impacts. The Ordinance once adopted would apply to data
centers of any scale or location within the city.
FEMA National Flood Hazard
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate
Map (panel number 27171C0170D, effective 6/20/2024 and panel number
27171C0165D, effective 6/20/2024), the AUAR study area is in an area of minimal
flooding area, or Zone X.18,19
Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan20
The Water Resources Management Plan (WRMP) serves as a comprehensive planning
document to guide the City in conserving, protecting, and managing its surface water
18 FEMA. 2024. FEMA Flood Map 27171C0165D. Available at: FIRMette Web [27171C0165D] (fema.gov).
19 FEMA. 2024. FEMA Flood Map 27171C0170D. Available at: FIRMette Web [27171C0170D] (fema.gov).
20 City of Monticello. 2019. Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan. Available at: Comprehensive-Water-Resource-
Management-Plan-PDF (monticello.mn.us)
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 28
resources. The City will use the WRMP as a guide to reach goals related to water quality,
volume reduction, and flood management. The WRMP also includes associated goals
and policies that address wetland management. As part of the goals and policies relating
to wetland management, the WRMP references wetland buffers between developments
adjacent to a wetland area. The goals and policies outlined in the WRMP relating to
wetland buffers are in accordance with the City of Monticello’s Code of Ordinances for
Wetland Districts and associated buffer and setback requirements.
City of Monticello Shoreland Ordinance
As noted above, the study area is within the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area and is
planned to be annexed into the city. Once annexed, a reclassification of DNR Basin 86-
394 would be required. The DNR anticipates this basin would be classified as Natural
Environment. The city would zone the 1,000-foot area surrounding the Ordinary High
Water Level (OHWL) of this basin as a Shoreland Overlay District. According to the city
zoning ordinance, industrial use is not allowed within a shoreland district. Within a
shoreland district, building structures and sewers must be located at least 150 feet from
the OHWL, no structures shall exceed 25 feet in height, and detached accessory
structures shall not exceed 15 feet in height. Structures must be placed in accordance
with floodplain regulations applicable to the site. If these controls do not exist, the
elevation of the lowest floor’s placement or floodproofing must be three feet above the
OHWL or the highest known water level, whichever is higher. Non-water oriented uses
on lots with water frontage are required to double the ordinary structure setbacks
unless substantially screened from view by vegetation (leaf-on conditions) or
topography. There are also restrictions that apply to the shore and bluff impact zones;
however, given the required setback of 150 feet from the OHWL, impacts to these zones
are not anticipated. The Community Development Department will also evaluate
possible soil erosion impacts and development visibility from public waters before
issuing a permit for construction of sewage treatment systems, roads, driveways,
structures, or other improvements on steep slopes within the shoreland district. Full
ordinance language is found in Zoning Code 153.046 Overlay Zoning Districts.
iv. If any critical facilities (i.e., facilities necessary for public health and safety, those
storing hazardous materials, or those housing occupants who may be insufficiently
mobile) are proposed in floodplain areas and other areas identified as at risk for
localized flooding, describe the risk potential considering changing precipitation and
event intensity.
No critical facilities are proposed as part of the project.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 29
Discuss the project’s compatibility with nearby land uses, zoning, and plans listed in Item 9a
above, concentrating on implications for environmental effects.
AUAR Guidance: The extent of conversion of existing farmlands anticipated in the AUAR should
be described. If any farmland will be preserved by special protection programs, this should be
discussed.
If development of the AUAR will interfere or change the use of any existing designated parks,
recreation areas, or trails, this should be described in the AUAR. The RGU may also want to
discuss under this item any proposed parks, recreation areas, or trails to be developed in
conjunction with development of the AUAR area.
The AUAR must include a statement of certification from the RGU that its comprehensive plan
complies with the requirements set out at Minnesota Rules, part 4410.3610, subpart 1. The
AUAR document should discuss the proposed AUAR area development in the context of the
comprehensive plan. If this has not been done as part of the responses to Items 6, 9, 11, 18, and
others, it must be addressed here; a brief synopsis should be presented here if the material has
been presented in detail under other items. Necessary amendments to comprehensive plan
elements to allow for any of the development scenarios should be noted. If there are any
management plans of any other local, state, or federal agencies applicable to the AUAR area, the
document must discuss the compatibility of the plan with the various development scenarios
studied, with emphasis on any incompatible elements.
Existing Land Use
Scenario 1 and Scenario 2
The existing agricultural and residential land use within the study area is expected to transition
to other uses as the area develops. Any new development, redevelopment, annexation, change
in land use, or change in zoning is required to be consistent with the City of Monticello 2040
Comprehensive Plan.
Zoning
Scenario 1 and Scenario 2
Wright County zoning map shows this area zoned for AG-General Agriculture. Monticello
Township does not have a zoning map. When the AUAR study area is annexed by the city of
Monticello, the City’s zoning map will need to be updated to include the study area with an
applicable zoning district that is consistent with the future land use for the area.
Both scenarios are anticipated to comply with the Water Resources Management Plan and the
Shoreland Overlay Ordinance that applies to the Unnamed MnDNR Public Water Wetland on the
southern portion of the study area.
Once the Data Center PUD Zoning Ordinance is adopted, it may include different development
requirements applicable to Scenario 1. Any requirements pertaining to overlay districts that
overlap with the study area will also apply.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 30
2040 Comprehensive Plan
The City of Monticello has certified that the 2040 Comprehensive Plan complies with the
requirements set out in Minnesota Rules, part 4410.3610, subpart 1.
Scenario 1
The development anticipated under Scenario 1 is consistent with the future Light Industrial Park
land use designation for the AUAR study area pending compliance with the review requirements
as detailed within the designation language of the 2040 Plan. The City of Monticello 2040
Comprehensive Plan accommodates technology campus development as described for Scenario
1 under the Light Industrial Park designation pending rezoning in compliance with the list of
review requirements as described in Table 7 for a data center or similar technology campus use.
Scenario 2
Development as contemplated under Scenario 2, which consists of a variety of light industrial
use, is consistent with the land uses allowed under the Monticello 2040 Comprehensive Plan
Light Industrial Park designation, but does not anticipate a technology campus as the primary
use of the study area.
Wright County Northeast Quadrant Land Use Plan
Scenario 2
The study area was anticipated to be developed between 2020 and 2040 in the Wright County
Northeast Quadrant Land Use Plan. Scenario 2’s full build out is likely to require a longer
timeline beyond 2040 based on typical light industrial land development occurring in the greater
Twin Cities area and would therefore be subject to future land use planning for that
undeveloped portion.
Natural Resource Inventory & Assessment
Scenarios 1 and 2
Both scenarios would need to incorporate the conceptual future greenway corridor as site
planning advances.
Identify measures incorporated into the proposed project to mitigate any potential
incompatibility as discussed in Item 10b above.
Both scenarios would incorporate buffering and screening to mitigate any potential land use
conflicts with nearby existing residential uses. No industrial development would occur within
shoreland, in accordance with city zoning ordinances.
Scenario 1
Scenario 1 would require a zoning change to allow for a technology campus use in the study
area and would need to comply with the Data Center PUD Zoning Ordinance once approved.
Application of the Shoreland Overlay District will also require review. The study area is outside
the city of Monticello and would require the city to annex land from the Township. Future
development would need to consider aligning the Natural Resource Inventory & Assessment
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 31
greenway corridor with the natural amenities in the area and accommodate future development
as shown on Figure 3.
Scenario 2
Scenario 2 would require a zoning change to allow for light industrial use in the study area. The
study area is outside the city of Monticello and would require the city to annex land from the
Township. Future development would need to consider aligning the Natural Resource Inventory
& Assessment plan greenway corridor with the natural amenities in the area and accommodate
future development as shown on Figure 4.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 32
Figure 8: Existing Land Use
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 33
Figure 9: Future Land Use21
21 Future land uses for the city of Monticello and adjacent areas determined in the Monticello 2040 Comprehensive Plan.
Available at: https://monticellomn.gov/274/Monticello-2040.
Agricultural land use for Monticello Township was determined in the Monticello Township Land Use Plan. Available at:
https://www.co.wright.mn.us/DocumentCenter/View/235/Monticello-Township-Land-Use-Plan-Map-PDF.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 34
11. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND TOPOGRAPHY/LAND FORMS
Geology – Describe the geology underlying the project area and identify and map any
susceptible geologic features such as sinkholes, shallow limestone formations,
unconfined/shallow aquifers, or karst conditions. Discuss any limitations of these features for
the project and any effects the project could have on these features. Identify any project
designs or mitigation measures to address effects to geologic features.
AUAR Guidance: A map should be included to show any groundwater hazards identified.
According to the Geologic Atlas of Wright County, the majority of the AUAR study area is
underlain by Mesoproterozoic bedrock and Paleozoic bedrocks. The Mesoproterozoic rocks
consist largely of sandstone, with minor amounts of siltstone and shale. These rocks are poorly
known in Wright County; therefore, they cannot be confidently assigned to individual
formations. However, they are likely to correlate with parts of the Hinckley Sandstone, Fond du
Lac, and Solor Church Formations. The Paleozoic rocks are dominantly medium-to coarse-
grained quartz sandstone and are part of the Mt. Simon Sandstone formation.22
There are no known sinkholes located within the AUAR study area. Additionally, there are no
karst conditions located within or near the study area. There is a shallow, unconfined aquifer
within the AUAR study area.
A Geotechnical Evaluation of the study area was completed in May 2025. According to borings
conducted during the study the site contains topsoil across varying in thickness from 1-2 feet.
Beneath the topsoil a mix of upper clay and silt soils was encountered generally extending 1-5
feet deep. Beneath this layer the site generally consists of sandy soils mixed with varying
amounts of clay, silt, and gravel to a depth of 30-50 feet with groundwater typically
encountered 10-30 feet beneath the surface. The Rapid Infiltration Basin (RIB) systems,
discussed in the water resources section below, will be placed according to the results of a
hydrogeological analysis. This analysis will ensure RIB placement results in an adequate distance
between projected groundwater mounding, at the end of a 20-year infiltration period, and the
soil surface. The soils are generally considered suitable for support of the proposed buildings
with some soil improvements recommended, such as removal of topsoil and replacement with
engineered fill materials. With 10 feet or more of soil above the groundwater, construction
activities will not impact the groundwater in the study area as the soil acts as a natural filter.
Soils and Topography – Describe the soils on the site, giving NRCS (SCS) classifications and
descriptions, including limitations of soils. Describe topography, any special site conditions
relating to erosion potential, soil stability, or other soil limitations, such as steep slopes or
highly permeable soils. Provide estimated volume and acreage of soil excavation and/or
grading. Discuss impacts from project activities (distinguish between construction and
operational activities) related to soils and topography. Identify measures during and after
22 University of Minnesota. 2013. Bedrock Geology. Available at:
https://conservancy.umn.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/c8f26a04-9210-476a-9e2c-b098c1209760/content.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 35
project construction to address soil limitations including stabilization, soil corrections, or other
measures. Erosion/sedimentation control related to stormwater runoff should be addressed
in response to Item 11.b.ii.
AUAR Guidance: The number of acres to be graded and number of cubic yards of soil to be
moved need not be given; instead, a general discussion of the likely earthmoving needs for
development of the area should be given, with an emphasis on unusual or problem areas. In
discussing mitigation measures, both the standard requirements of the local ordinances and any
special measures that would be added for AUAR purposes should be included. A standard soils
map for the area should be included.
According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey, the study area
is comprised of 12 different soil types. Soils are classified by the NRCS into four hydrologic soil
groups, A, B, C, and D, with A having the lowest runoff potential and D having the greatest
runoff potential. The erosion hazard indicates the hazard of soil loss from off-road areas after
disturbance activities that expose the soil surface. All soil information for the study area is
described in Table 8. Within the project site, 13.0 percent of the soil surface is mapped with a
“moderate” rating, indicating that some erosion is likely in these areas and that erosion control
measures may be needed. The remaining 86.1 percent of the study area is mapped with a
“slight” rating, meaning that erosion is unlikely under ordinary climatic conditions, and 0.9
percent is considered null or not rated.
Topography within the study area varies from 948 feet in elevation in the northeastern corner of
the site to 980 feet in elevation in the southern portion of the study area as shown in Figure 1.
Scenario 1 and Scenario 2
It is anticipated that for both development scenarios the raw earthwork can be generally
balanced on the site to maintain the existing drainage patterns when feasible. This earthwork
will be compliant with the city shoreland ordinance. Where appropriate, slope stabilization will
be provided by means of vegetation establishment, erosion control blankets, or other standard
methods of erosion and sediment control.
A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Stormwater Permit will
be obtained prior to any earthwork or grading activities within the AUAR study area. A
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be provided as a part of the permit. A
Minnesota Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) typically includes a site map,
description of activities, and Best Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion/sediment control
and pollution prevention, plus maintenance plans, spill prevention, inspection records, and
training documentation, all aimed at minimizing pollutants from construction or industrial sites
entering waterways, with specific requirements depending on the site's industrial sector or if it's
part of a city's (MS4) program.
Operational activities are not expected to have an impact on soils within the study area.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 36
A 1991 report by the MnDNR identified substantial aggregate resources underneath the study
area.23 The report did not designate the study area as an “Aggregate Resource Area”; however,
it is adjacent to a proposed Aggregate Resource Area. The city will consider mining of aggregate
resources prior to moving forward with either development scenario. While mining could be
incorporated under Scenario 2, Scenario 1 would not allow for these aggregate resources to be
mined.
Table 8: Soil Types
Map
unit
symbol
Map unit
name
Acres
in AOI
Percent
of AOI
Farmland
Rating
Hydric
Rating
Hydrologic
Soil Group
Erosion
Hazard
Rating
261 Isan-Isan,
frequently
ponded,
complex, 0 to 2
percent slopes
0.7 0.1% Not prime
farmland
2, 3 A/D Slight
375 Forada sandy
loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes
15.6 2.8% Prime
farmland if
drained
2, 3 B/D Slight
406 Dorset sandy
loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes
127.0 23.1% Farmland of
statewide
importance
2 B Slight
441 Almora loam, 0
to 2 percent
slopes
8.8 1.6% All areas are
prime
farmland
0 B Slight
1288 Seelyeville and
Markey soils,
ponded, o to 1
percent slopes
9.1 1.7% Not prime
farmland
1, 2, 3 A/D Slight
1368 Southhaven
loam, o to 2
percent slopes
9.5 1.7% All areas are
prime
farmland
0 B Slight
1377B Dorset-Two
Inlets complex,
6 to 12 percent
slopes
279.8 50.9% Farmland of
statewide
importance
0 A Slight
23 MnDNR. Wright County Aggregate Map. Available at:
https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/lands_minerals/aggregate_maps/completed/wright.html.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 37
Map
unit
symbol
Map unit
name
Acres
in AOI
Percent
of AOI
Farmland
Rating
Hydric
Rating
Hydrologic
Soil Group
Erosion
Hazard
Rating
1377C Dorset-Two
Inlets complex,
6 to 12 percent
slopes
59.1 10.7% Not prime
farmland
0 A Moderate
1377D Dorset-Two
Inlets complex,
12 to 20
percent slopes
12.6 2.3% Not prime
farmland
0 A Moderate
1942 Forada and
Leafriver soils,
frequently
ponded, 0 to 1
percent slopes
6.4 1.2% Not prime
farmland
1, 2, 3 B/D Slight
1975 Oylen sandy
loam, 0 to 2
percent slopes
16.5 3.0% Farmland of
statewide
importance
2 C Slight
W Water 4.9 0.9% Not prime
farmland
N/A N/A Not Rated
Source: United States Department of Agriculture. 2024. Web Soil Survey.
https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 38
Figure 10: Soil Types
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 39
12. WATER RESOURCES
AUAR Guidance: The information called for on the EAW form should be supplied for any of the
infrastructure associated with the AUAR development scenarios, and for any development expected
to physically impact any water resources. Where it is uncertain whether water resources will be
impacted depending on the exact design of future development, the AUAR should cover the possible
impacts through a “worst case scenario” or else prevent impacts through the provisions of the
mitigation plan.
Describe surface water and groundwater features on or near the site below.
i. Surface Water – lakes, streams, wetlands, intermittent channels, and county/judicial
ditches. Include any special designations such as public waters, trout stream/lake,
wildlife lakes, migratory waterfowl feeding/resting lake, and outstanding resource
value water. Include water quality impairments or special designations listed on the
current MPCA 303d Impaired Waters List that are within one mile of the project.
Include DNR Public Waters Inventory number(s), if any.
There are seven identified wetlands within the study area as shown in Figure 12. Two
field wetland delineations were completed in 2024 and 2025 to confirm the extents of
wetlands and waterways within the project study area (see Appendix A).24
The closest MPCA 303d Impaired Water to the study area is Pelican Lake, located
approximately 1.3 miles to the southeast.25 There is one unnamed MnDNR Public Water
Wetland in the southeastern corner of the study area (ID# 86039400). There are five
unnamed MnDNR Public Water Wetlands within one-mile of the study area (ID#
86048400, 86008300, 86007700, 86007500, 86008400). There are three MnDNR Public
Water basins within one-mile of the study area (Paradise Lake - ID# 86008200, Slough
Lake - ID# 86007800, Gilchrist Lake - ID# 86006400).26 Additionally, there are no trout
streams or lakes, County Ditches migratory waterfowl feeding/resting lakes, or
outstanding resource value waters within or adjacent to the study area.
Runoff from the study area generally drains to landlocked basins on the west, east and
north side of the property, and approximately 15% of the site drains towards the
wetland located in the southern portion of the study area.
24 The westernmost wetland is referred to as “Wetland 7” in this document. However, since this wetland was delineated in
2025, separately from the other six wetlands, it is referred to as “Wetland 1” in the 2025 Notice of Decision included in
Appendix A.
25 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2024. Impaired Waters. Available at:
https://mpca.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=fcfc5a12d2fd4b16bc95bb535d09ae82
26 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2025. Public Waters (PW) Basin and Watercourse Delineation. Available at:
https://gisdata.mn.gov/dataset/water-mn -public-waters
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 40
Figure 11: Surface Water Resources
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 41
Figure 12: Wetland Delineation Summary
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 42
Table 9: Wetland Delineation Summary
Resource
ID
Wetland Plant
Community
Size
(acres)
Anticipated
Wetland
Quality 27
Notes
Wetland
1
Seasonally
Flooded Basin 0.33 Low
Wetland located in depression in the
northcentral section of the study area. The
wetland collects runoff from the
surrounding landscape. The wetland
boundary was based on the change in
topography and offsite aerial analysis.
Wetland
2
Fresh Wet
Meadow 4.44 Medium
Wetland located in depression in the
northeastern section of the study area. The
wetland collects runoff from the
surrounding landscape. The wetland
boundary was based on the change in
topography, offsite aerial analysis, and
hydrophytic vegetation dominance.
Wetland
3
Seasonally
Flooded Basin 2.19 Low
Wetland located in depression in the
northeastern section of the study area. The
wetland collects runoff from the
surrounding landscape. The wetland
boundary was based on the change in
topography, offsite aerial analysis, and
hydrophytic vegetation dominance.
Wetland
4
Shallow, Open
Water;
Floodplain
Forest; Fresh
Wet Meadow
22.26 Medium
Wetland complex located in a depression
between agricultural fields along the
southern border of the study area. The
complex consists of a shallow, open water
plant community surrounded by a fresh
wet meadow plant community and a
forested floodplain plant community. The
wetland collects runoff from the
surrounding landscape and a series of
onsite/offsite mapped National Wetland
Inventory, National Hydrology Database,
and Public Water Inventory features. The
wetland boundary was based on the
change in topography and hydrophytic
vegetation dominance.
Wetland
5
Seasonally
Flooded Basin 0.75 Low
Wetland located in depression in the
northeastern section of the study area. The
wetland collects runoff from the
surrounding landscape. The wetland
27 Wetland quality is discussed further in Table 18.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 43
Resource
ID
Wetland Plant
Community
Size
(acres)
Anticipated
Wetland
Quality 27
Notes
boundary was based on the change in
topography, presence of hydric soils, and
hydrophytic vegetation dominance.
Wetland
6
Seasonally
Flooded Basin 0.60 Low
Wetland located in depression in the
northeastern section of the study area. The
wetland collects runoff from the
surrounding landscape. The wetland
boundary was based on the change in
topography and offsite aerial analysis.
Wetland
7
Seasonally
Flooded Basin 0.18 Low
The wetland is located in a farmed
depression in the center of the study area.
The wetland collects runoff from the
surrounding landscape and drains south.
The wetland boundary was based on the
change in topography, historic aerials, and
LiDAR review.
ii. Groundwater – aquifers, springs, and seeps. Include 1) depth to groundwater; 2) if
project is within a MDH well protection area; and 3) identification of any onsite
and/or nearby wells, including unique numbers and well logs, if available. If there are
no wells known on site or nearby, explain the methodology used to determine this.
According to the Geologic Atlas of Wright County groundwater is present at
approximately 20 feet below grade, excluding the wetland portion.28
Based on Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) and Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources (MnDNR) well records, five wells may be located within the study
area. Descriptions of each well are identified in Table 10 and wells with verified mapped
locations are shown in Figure 13. Under either scenario, the wells located within the
study area will be properly sealed by a licensed well contractor prior to redevelopment
within the study area as per MDH well sealing requirements.
If unidentified wells are found, the MDH must be contacted to determine the course of
action, which may include sealing, relocating, or preserving by a licensed well contractor
according to Minnesota Rules Chapter 4725.
The northwestern corner of AUAR study area is located within a wellhead protection
area (Monticello) and a Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA)
(Monticello).29 The DWSMA is listed as low vulnerability. According to the Monticello
28 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2018. Geological Atlas of Wright County, Minnesota Part B, Hydrogeology.
Available at: https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/groundwater_section/mapping/cga/c30_wright/wright_report.pdf
29 Minnesota Department of Health. Source Water Protection Web Map Viewer. Available at:
https://mdh.maps.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=8b0db73d3c95452fb45231900e977be4
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 44
Wellhead Protection Plan, the DWSMA is an area studied for potential contaminant
sources and how to reduce pathways for those contaminants that could reach the
source water aquifer.30 Under Scenario 1, the DWSMA would need to be re-evaluated to
account for the anticipated increase in water appropriations from the aquifer. Surface
water that is captured and infiltrated will be designed in accordance with the MPCA
stormwater manual and DWSMA standards, to reduce the risk of impacting the
groundwater from surface water runoff. The surface water runoff from future
development will be captured and treated in lined stormwater ponds prior to leaving
the site to meet requirements from the City of Monticello, MPCA, MDH, and the NPDES
Construction Stormwater Permit.
Scenario 1
Scenario 1 would include the use of non-contact cooling water. This water is used to
absorb and remove heat from equipment or processes without directly contacting the
materials being cooled. It typically circulates through heat exchangers or condensers to
dissipate heat from various mechanical or industrial systems before being discharged or
reused. This water could be circulated through the system two or more times to reduce
water usage. The non-contact cooling wastewater generated under Scenario 1 is
proposed to be discharged into the groundwater via a Rapid Infiltration Basin (RIB)
system. See the wastewater section below for a detailed description of RIB function.
The City completed a draft study in 2025 to evaluate the current aquifer capacity in the
area. The study evaluated two scenarios, both assuming four new wells with
assumptions for pumping at different levels. The study found that there appears to be
limited draw down impact to adjacent wells within city limits and wells directly across
the Mississippi River. The four sites for the potential location for the well identified
through this study include the following:
• Site No. 1: 4th St. and Palm St.
• Site No. 2: Southeast parcel on the corner of Dundas Rd. and Dundas Cir.
• Site No. 3: 4th St. and Wright St.
• Site No. 4: Adjacent to the Monticello Fire Station
Following construction of the new well, the City would implement monitoring wells and
the water data from these monitoring wells would be sent to the MnDNR to evaluate if
there is additional mitigation needed for adjacent private wells. If there is an impact to
adjacent wells, the DNR and City would lower the pumping levels allowed.
The wellhead protection boundary area as part of the DWSMA will need to be increased
with any new wells.
30 City of Monticello. Wellhead Protection Program. Available at: https://www.monticellomn.gov/232/Wellhead-Protection-
Program.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 45
Scenario 2
Scenario 2 would not require a RIB system for cooling wastewater discharge, and all
wastewater would be discharged to the Municipal collection system.
Table 10: Wells within AUAR Study Area
Well ID Number Index
Status Well Use Well Depth (feet) MN DNR Permit
182151 Active Irrigation 122 2012-0909
472289 Active Domestic 62 -
785271 Unverified Irrigation 120 -
840393 Unverified Irrigation 96 2019-1384
183902 Unverified Domestic 79 -
Source: Minnesota Department of Health. Minnesota Well Index. Available at:
https://mnwellindex.web.health.state.mn.us/; Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Well
Records.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 46
Figure 13: Groundwater Resources
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 47
Describe effects from project activities on water resources and measures to minimize or
mitigate the effects below.
i. Wastewater – For each of the following, describe the sources, quantities, and
composition of all sanitary, municipal/domestic, and industrial wastewaters projected
or treated at the site.
AUAR Guidance: Observe the following points of guidance in an AUAR:
• Only domestic wastewater should be considered in an AUAR—industrial
wastewater would be coming from industrial uses that are excluded from review
through an AUAR process
• Wastewater flows should be estimated by land use subareas of the AUAR area;
the basis of flow estimates should be explained
• The major sewer system features should be shown on a map and the expected
flows should be identified
• If not explained under Item 6, the expected staging of the sewer system
construction should be described
• The relationship of the sewer system extension to the RGU’s comprehensive
sewer plan and (for metro area AUARs) to Metropolitan Council regional systems
plans, including MUSA expansions, should be discussed. For non-metro area
AUARs, the AUAR must discuss the capacity of the RGU’s wastewater treatment
system compared to the flows from the AUAR area; any necessary improvements
should be described.
• If on-site systems will serve part of the AUAR, the guidance in the February 2000
edition of the EAW Guidelines on page 16 regarding item 18b under Residential
development should be followed.
1) If the wastewater discharge is to a publicly owned treatment facility, identify any
pretreatment measures and the ability of the facility to handle the added water
and waste loadings, including any effects on, or required expansion of, municipal
wastewater infrastructure.
The City of Monticello has its own wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) that is
permitted for 2.36 million gallons per day (MGD) and has an average daily flow of
1.15 MGD. The WWTP ultimately discharges into the Mississippi River. For both
Scenarios 1 and 2, the City of Monticello's Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive plan
indicates a proposed trunk sewer being extended to and through the site to serve
this area of the city. A draft analysis of the sanitary sewer collection system for this
development was completed in November 2024 by the city to determine the scope
of the improvements to serve this area with sanitary sewer. Based on the results of
the study, a 36-inch trunk sanitary sewer line will need to be constructed down
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 48
Fallon Avenue from Chelsea Road. A more detailed analysis of the scope and extent
of the trunk sewer extension will be needed for a specific project. If the specific
project that requires an expansion, modification or replacement of a municipal
sewage collection system resulting in an increase in design average daily flow of any
part of that system by 1,000,000 gallons per day or more if the discharge is to a
wastewater treatment facility with a capacity less than 20,000,000 gallons per day,
then an EAW would need to be completed per Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 18(A) with
MPCA as the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU).
Scenario 1
Under Scenario 1, a technology campus use would only send domestic strength
waste to the WWTP. Typically, facilities of this size have discharges of 25,000 gallons
per day (GPD) or 50,000 GPD depending on the number of people on site per day.
The city has the available capacity to treat the domestic wastewater at their current
treatment plant but will require the trunk sewer extension to be constructed to
provide sewer service to the study area, see Table 11.
Scenario 1 is not anticipated to generate industrial wastewater. If these conditions
change, the AUAR would need to be updated and additional review and permitting
may be required. Industrial wastewater has several meanings. By definition
industrial wastewater is water that is discharged from an industrial process,
including water from manufacturing, equipment cleanup, air pollution control, and
contaminated cooling or stormwater, essentially any water that comes into contact
with raw materials, products, byproducts, or waste.
For the purposes of evaluating the maximum development capacity impact (worst
case), Scenario 1 assumes a water-cooled system could be implemented. If a specific
project advances that intends to use an air-cooled system or a combination or air
and water-cooled, the peak demand evaluated in this AUAR already covers the
upper limit for water use anticipated in terms of impacts and mitigation.
Non-contact cooling water use from a technology campus is anticipated to have a
peak discharge of 1 to 1.5 MGD for the peak day, and may discharge as much as 100
million gallons per year. This discharge does not contain any Biochemical Oxygen
Demand (BOD) or Total Suspended Solids (TSS) like domestic wastewater and is only
discharged from approximately April through October on an intermittent basis. The
discharge does not occur on an everyday basis and the amount of water discharged
is dependent on the temperature of the facility and the ambient air temperature.
This discharge is proposed to be infiltrated back into the soil through a Rapid
Infiltration Basin (RIB) system within the site 31. The proposed Rapid Infiltration Basin
(RIB) system will be separate from any stormwater management systems or basins
and is well-suited to the study area due to the generally sandy and permeable soils
31 MPCA’s guidance on RIBs: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/wq-wwtp5-64.pdf
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 49
(per the Geotechnical Evaluation completed for the study area in May 2025). The
RIB system is designed with Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA)
considerations in mind and will comply with Minnesota Department of Health
(MDH) and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) standards of care for
DWSMA regions.
Non-contact cooling water, which circulates through equipment multiple times in
technology parks, will ultimately be discharged to the RIB. This water contains no
human or industrial waste and meets MDH drinking water standards, consisting only
of water from groundwater wells. The discharge will be infiltrated back into the soil
through the RIB system, allowing for gradual aquifer recharge over time.
As part of the RIB system permit application, a hydrogeological study will be
conducted to determine groundwater flow direction, assess soil suitability, and
identify any limitations for siting the RIB. This study will also address the rate of
infiltration and required RIB sizing. A full water quality analysis of the effluent will be
provided, and any pre-treatment requirements will be determined by the MPCA
prior to discharge. The permitting process will include an EAW and a 30-day public
and agency comment period, with an anticipated timeline of 12 to 18 months from
permit submittal to approval.
The RIB system is anticipated to be 15 to 20 acres in total area and anticipated to be
comprised of four cells with a bottom area of each cell being approximately 3.5 to
4.5 acres in size based on preliminary soil information. Actual size will depend on
the developers’ flow rates and results of more in-depth soil testing. The RIB system
will consist of multiple cells, each accepting cooling water wastewater flow for two
days and then resting for six days, with rotation to ensure proper infiltration and
resting. The system acts as a large filter, trapping most impurities at the surface.
Maintenance will involve periodic removal of the top few inches of mineral deposit-
laden soil, which will be disposed of in a landfill. Monthly Discharge Monitoring
Reports will be required according to the NPDES permit. The developer will be
responsible for hiring a licensed professional to prepare these reports and send
them to the MPCA.
If a future development requires discharge of 310,000 GPD or less of non-contact
cooling water and domestic wastewater then that discharge could go to the city’s
municipal sanitary sewer collection system, as the additional discharge to the
WWTP is within hydraulic capacity. However, with the additional non-contact
cooling water that is anticipated with Scenario 1, it is expected to have a slight
decrease in the organic loading that would require biological adjustments to
operation of the WWTP. Discharge above that capacity will require additional study
and evaluation for impact and system improvements.
Other alternative wastewater methods that could be investigated include:
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 50
• Re-use of non-contact cooling water for spray irrigation for crop fields
• Obtain a surface discharge permit for non-contact cooling water discharge
Under all scenarios, non-contact cooling water discharges to the municipal system
are not expected to exceed 310,000 GPD. If a facility anticipates a discharge greater
than this threshold, the developer must obtain an individual NPDES permit from the
MPCA. Potential discharge methods subject to evaluation include rapid infiltration
basins, spray irrigation, or surface discharge systems, all of which must be located
on or near the facility property.
Each system requires a separate permit review by the MPCA, including full system
design, comprehensive soils investigations, water quality modeling, and preparation
of an EAW. The permitting process includes a 30-day public comment period prior to
approval. Ongoing monitoring for permitted pollutants is required, with monthly
discharge reporting to the MPCA.
Scenario 2
Office/warehouse industrial developments typically have a low water and
wastewater demand on the distribution and collection system. Based on the
anticipated uses and using the MCES SAC determination calculator, assuming 30%
office and 70% warehouse for each building, Scenario 2 is estimated to produce
approximately 310,000 GPD of wastewater. The wastewater would consist of typical
domestic strength wastewater. The city appears to have the available capacity in
their existing system for the proposed flows for Scenario 2 with the extension of the
sanitary sewer trunk main, see Table 11. However, development of other light
industrial uses allowed under the land use plan guidance will require evaluation for
wastewater demand prior to development for necessary wastewater impacts and
infrastructure requirements.
Scenario 2 is not anticipated to generate industrial wastewater. If these conditions
change, the AUAR would need to be updated and additional review and permitting
may be required.
Scenario 1 and 2 Monitoring for Contaminants
Monitoring of the wastewater effluent will be conducted in accordance with NPDES
permit issued by the MPCA. The discharge will be required to meet the limits of
contamination set by the MPCA for the specific site during the permitting process.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 51
Table 11. Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity (Domestic)
Scenario 1 Scenario 2
WWTP Permit Capacity (MGD) 2.36
WWTP Average Flow (MGD) 1.15
WWTP Average Available Capacity (MGD) 1.21
Additional Proposed Flow to WWTP (MGD) 0.025-0.05 0.31
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 52
Figure 14: Proposed Sewer Service Options
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 53
2) If the wastewater discharge is to a subsurface sewage treatment system (SSTS),
describe the system used, the design flow, and suitability of site conditions for
such a system.
No subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTS) are anticipated within the AUAR
study area for the proposed development scenarios. The residences within the
study area will remain until such time development starts. The SSTS systems will be
pumped, collapsed, filled, and abandoned per the MPCA chapter 7080 code. A
permit for the abandonment of the existing SSTS will be applied for from the county.
3) If the wastewater discharge is to surface water, identify the wastewater
treatment methods, discharge points, and proposed effluent limitations to
mitigation impacts. Discuss any effects to surface or groundwater from
wastewater discharges.
There is no planned surface discharge of the non-contact cooling wastewater for
either scenario. The cooling water from the facility is proposed to be discharged to a
RIB system and infiltrated into the ground water. The effluent that will be
discharged to the ground water will need to meet the water quality standards set by
the MPCA for the discharge as described above.
Should an alternate method of surface discharge via a surface discharge permit be
implemented for either scenario, the developer would need to obtain a NPDES
permit from MPCA.
ii. Stormwater – Describe changes in surface hydrology resulting from change of land
cover. Describe the routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the project site
(major downstream water bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters). Discuss
environmental effects from stormwater discharges on receiving waters post-
construction, including how the project will affect runoff volume, discharge rate, and
change in pollutants. Consider the effects of current Minnesota climate trends and
anticipated changes in rainfall frequency, intensity, and amount with this discussion.
For projects requiring NPDES/SDS Construction Stormwater permit coverage, state the
total number of acres that will be disturbed by the project and describe the
stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), including specific best management
practices to address soil erosion and sedimentation during and after project
construction. Discuss permanent stormwater management plans, including methods
of achieving volume reduction to restore or maintain the natural hydrology of the site
using green infrastructure practices or other stormwater management practices.
Identify any receiving waters that have construction-related water impairments or are
classified as special as defined in the Construction Stormwater permit. Describe
additional requirements for special and/or impaired waters.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 54
AUAR Guidance: For an AUAR the following additional guidance should be followed in
addition to that in EAW Guidelines:
• It is expected that an AUAR will have a detailed analysis of stormwater issues
• A map of the proposed stormwater management system and of the water
bodies that will receive stormwater should be provided
• The description of the stormwater systems would identify on-site and “regional”
detention ponding and also indicate whether the various ponds will be new
water bodies or converted existing ponds or wetlands. Where on-site ponds will
be used but have not yet been designed, the discussion should indicate the
design standards that will be followed.
• If present in or adjoining the AUAR area, the following types of water bodies
must be given special analyses:
o Lakes: Within the Twin Cities metro area, a nutrient budget analysis
must be prepared for any “priority lake” identified by the Metropolitan
Council. Outside of the metro area, lakes needing a nutrient budget
analysis must be determined by consultation with the MPCA and DNR
staffs.
o Trout streams: If stormwater discharges will enter or affect a trout
stream, an evaluation of the impacts on the chemical composition and
temperature regime of the stream and the consequent impacts on the
trout population (and other species of concern) must be included.
Environmental Effects
Stormwater runoff can cause several environmental problems. When untreated,
stormwater drains from manmade locations such as agricultural fields, impervious
surfaces, and construction sites. It can carry sediments and/or pollutants that harm
aquatic ecosystems and wildlife.
Analysis Objectives
This analysis aims to evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed development in the
AUAR on receiving waters and provide guidance on necessary stormwater mitigation
measures to protect downstream bodies. The focus is on recommending stormwater
mitigation strategies to reduce runoff volumes and rates leaving the AUAR area to the
MnDNR Public Water Wetland (ID#86039400) and to address the potential loss of
landlocked storage within the study area. The standards and strategies guiding these
mitigation measures are derived from the following sources:
• Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit;
• City of Monticello Engineering Design Standards for Stormwater Management
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 55
• City of Monticello Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan
• Minnesota Stormwater Manual
Specific requirements that guided the analysis for the AUAR are described below:
1. Rate Control – The City of Monticello requires onsite detention to maintain existing flow
rates for the 2-year (2.84 inches), 10-year (4.22 inches), and 100-year (6.87 inches) 24-
hour rainfalls. In addition, the city requires that detention basins be designed with
capacity for the critical 100-year event (2-hour, 6-hour, 12-hour, or 24-hour rainfall, or
the 10-day, 9.94-inch snowmelt runoff event). If the basin is landlocked, the back-to-
back 24-hour event and the 10-day 9.94-inch snowmelt runoff event is also used.
2. Volume Control – The City of Monticello's performance goal is to capture and retain on
site 1.1 inches of runoff from the sum of the new and fully reconstructed impervious
surfaces in post-construction conditions. The City's Comprehensive Water Resources
Management Plan states that the city prefers the use of regional stormwater retention
systems.
3. Water Quality – The City of Monticello requires pretreatment prior to discharge to
infiltration facilities. And if the volume control standard has been met, then the water
quality sizing criteria shall be considered satisfied.
Meeting these AUAR standards should sufficiently protect the downstream system after
development in either scenario.
Existing Conditions
Most of the study area is agricultural land with good soils. There is minimal impervious
surface area within the study area, and no existing permanent stormwater management
features. There are three landlocked areas located in the study area and four main
drainage areas, See Figure 15 for names and drainage areas.
Approximately 326 acres, (308 acres within study area, 18 acres offsite) flows south and
west to landlocked basin LL-1 with an ultimate outfall to the southwest of approximately
964.2 feet above sea level. Approximately 94 acres of the site drains northeast to
landlocked basin LL-2 with an ultimate outfall of 954.9 feet above sea level.
Approximately 79 acres of the site drains east to landlocked basin LL-3 with an ultimate
outfall of 961.4 feet above sea level. Approximately 69 acres of the site flows south
unrestricted to the unnamed MnDNR Public Water Wetland in the southeast corner of
the site (ID# 86039400). This feature appears to be hydraulically connected to Paradise
Lake and Gilchrist Lake to the south.
HydroCAD was used to model the landlocked basins and assess their storage capacity
and potential discharge. The available storage was calculated using the 100-year, 10-day
runoff (7.2 inches) per the City of Monticello Design Manual, dated December 2024. The
HWL was calculated using the 10-day, 9.94-inch snowmelt runoff event per the City of
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 56
Monticello Design Manual. See table below for existing landlocked basin available
storage and HWL.
Table 12: Existing Landlocked Basin Summary
Basin
Name
Available Storage
(acre-feet)
Existing
HWL
Overflow
Elevation
Discharge in Critical 100-yr
Event?
LL-1 95.6 965.1 964.2 Yes
LL-2 54.5 954.5 954.9 No
LL-3 36.1 961.5 961.4 Yes
There is approximately 18 acres of offsite drainage area from the southwest that
contributes to the existing landlocked basin LL-1. According to StreamStats, 32
approximately 4.35 square miles of offsite drainage originates at County Road 12 and
continues northwest toward the study area (see Appendix B for the Streamstats report).
However, public LIDAR data indicates that this drainage does not actually reach the
study area boundary. Within the StreamStats-defined drainage area, there are several
landlocked basins (ID#86042300, ID#86008000, ID#86007900, and ID#86007800) that
retain runoff volume and prevent flow from moving further downstream. Additionally,
the mapped flow path in StreamStats crosses Minnesota Highway 25, but the road’s
lowest elevation near the study area is 971 feet, while Basin #86007800’s DNR-defined
ordinary high water level (OHWL) is 950.9 feet. This elevation difference, along with the
presence of landlocked basins, means that the estimated 4.35 square miles of offsite
drainage shown in StreamStats does not actually flow through or enter the study area. A
detailed survey of this area will be conducted to confirm the conveyance of offsite flow
in this area.
During Construction
During construction, erosion and sediment control best management practices (BMPs)
will be implemented to prevent impacts to aquatic ecosystems per the City of
Monticello and MPCA MS4 and NPDES Standards. There are no special or impaired
waters within 1-mile of the study area. The following design/construction standards are
to be adhered to during construction:
• Plan for and implement appropriate construction phasing, vegetative buffer
strips, horizontal slope grading, and other construction practices to minimize
erosion and prevent damage to adjacent property. All areas not to be disturbed
shall be marked (e.g., with flags, stakes, signs, silt fence etc.) on the project site
before any work begins.
32 Available at: https://streamstats.usgs.gov/ss/.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 57
• The erosion and sediment control measures shall be maintained and repaired
throughout construction and until such time as the property has been either
sodded or a seeded vegetative cover has taken hold.
• Temporary rock entrances are required on every construction site and are
required after backfilling of foundation.
• Exposed soil, including stockpiles shall be stabilized immediately where activity
has permanently or temporarily ceased on any portion of this site and will not
resume for a period of time exceeding 14 days.
• After connecting drainage ditches or swales that drain water from the site, the
last 200 linear feet must be stabilized within 24 hours after connecting to
surface water.
• If dewatering is to take place, adequate treatment must be provided so that
nuisance conditions will not result from the discharge.
• Pipe outlets must have temporary or permanent energy dissipation before
connecting to surface water.
• All areas disturbed during construction must be restored, and a minimum of six
inches of topsoil must be installed prior to permanent restoration.
• Sediment control practices must be established on all down gradient perimeters
before any upgradient land disturbing activities begin. These practices must
remain in place until final stabilization has been achieved.
• Temporary sedimentation basins will be designed with outlet skimmers, energy
dissipation, sediment storage, stabilized banks, and permanent vegetation to
maximize pollutant removal and control.
• Ensure that clearing and grading activities are restricted within 50 feet of the
existing wetland boundary that is to be protected, in order to maintain a buffer
strip of natural vegetation. If maintaining the required buffer is not feasible, the
reason must be documented in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) and redundant perimeter sediment control best management
practices (BMPs) must be installed. All buffers must be maintained in
compliance with the City’s Wetland Overlay District.
• Compliance with the NPDES General Construction Stormwater Permit
requirements.
Post Construction
Overall impervious surface area is proposed to increase to 170 acres in Scenario 1 and
233 acres in Scenario 2, increasing the runoff coefficient from existing conditions. To
mitigate this, on-site stormwater basins are proposed and will be sized to accommodate
runoff from these impervious areas and the outlet control structures will be designed to
discharge at a rate less than that in the existing condition for the 2-year, 10-year, and
100-year, 24-hour storm events and the 10-day, 9.94-inch runoff event for landlocked
basins. These basins will be separate from the proposed RIB systems to mitigate non-
contact cooling water discharge.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 58
The proposed conditions analysis assumes the impervious areas in scenarios 1 and 2 are
distributed evenly across the site. Additionally, as the drainage area boundaries are
schematic, it is assumed that in either scenario existing drainage patterns are able to be
maintained with the proposed locations of the stormwater management areas. There
are three stormwater management areas proposed in this analysis that align with where
the existing landlocked basins are located. See Figure 16 and Figure 17 for proposed
stormwater management drainage areas and basins.
The PR-DA-1 drainage area encompasses approximately 325 acres, in the western
portion of the study area with all runoff directed to Basin P1 in the southwest. Basin P1
is sized to detain the full runoff volume generated by a 100-year, 24-hour storm event
and retain 1.1” times the new impervious area. For storm events exceeding 24-hours,
controlled discharge from Basin P1 may occur to Minnesota Public Water Wetland ID
#86039400. Furthermore, discharge rates from Basin P1 will be restricted to match
existing condition rates from LL-1 to prevent adverse impacts downstream.
The PR-DA-2 drainage area encompasses approximately 107 acres in the northeast
portion of the study area, with all runoff directed to Basin P2. Basin P1 is sized to detain
the full runoff volume generated by a 100-year, 24-hour storm event and retain 1.1”
times the new impervious area. The existing landlocked basin does not discharge in the
10-day, 9.94-inch runoff event. Therefore, PR-DA-2 will be restricted to this threshold.
Basin 2 may discharge to the preserved landlocked area as long as this landlocked area
maintains no discharge to the north.
The PR-DA-3 drainage area encompasses approximately 94 acres, in the eastern portion
of the study area with all runoff directed to Basin P3 in the southwest. Basin P1 is sized
to detain the full runoff volume generated by a 100-year, 24-hour storm event and
retain 1.1” times the new impervious area. For storm events exceeding 24-hours,
controlled discharge from Basin P3 may occur to Minnesota Public Water Wetland
ID#86039400. Furthermore, discharge rates from Basin P3 will be restricted to match
existing condition rates from LL-3 to prevent adverse impacts downstream.
The PR-DA-4 drainage area encompasses approximately 42 acres in the southeast
portion of the study area and will flow directly to Minnesota Public Water Wetland
ID#86039400. Discharge rates from PR-DA-4 will be restricted to match existing
condition rates entering Minnesota Public Water Wetland ID#86039400.
According to the Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan, the city prefers to
provide rate control with a regional stormwater retention system.33 If a regional system
is not viable, onsite basins will be required to store the full runoff volume in the event of
a 100-year, 24-hour storm.34 For the purposes of this analysis, the proposed basins are
sized to manage the runoff from a fully developed drainage area, including any offsite
33 Available at: https://www.monticellomn.gov/203/Resources.
34 See Section 3.1 Policy 4 of the City of Monticello Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan. Available at:
https://www.monticellomn.gov/203/Resources.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 59
drainage area (approximately 18 acres from the southwest). Infiltration basins with
pretreatment Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) ponds are assumed to be
viable based on the high-quality soils. Infiltration basins will follow MPCA guidelines and
the requirements of the NPDES Permit. Drawdown times and ponding depths are the
driving metric for basin size and footprint. NURP ponds with permanent pools should be
evaluated for algae growth. Natural buffers around the ponds should be prioritized to
reduce nutrient loading and trash entering the pond from the direct drainage areas,
aeration devices can also be used to increase pond circulation and limit algae growth.
Infiltration basin sizing assumes a maximum ponding depth of 4 feet with an infiltration
rate of 1.0 inches per hour, with a mix of sand and gravel soils present. Future Geotech
reports will help further define infiltration rates used in the basins. Pretreatment basins
are sized to provide a permanent pool of the 2.5” event based on NURP standards with
an average ponding depth of six feet. The detention area needed is based on the
difference in runoff volume from existing conditions to proposed conditions for the
Back-to-Back 100-year storm for a given basin on the site. See Table 13 and Table 14
below for a summary of the proposed runoff volumes and stormwater basin sizing.
Table 13: Proposed Conditions Runoff Volume Summary
Scenario Basin
1.1” *
Impervious
Volume
Control
Requireme
nt (ac-ft)
2.5” Runoff Volume (ac-
ft)
100-yr
Runoff
Volume (ac-
ft)
Δ Volume
for Back-to-
Back 100-
Year Storm
(ac-ft)
Scenario 1
P-1 8.9 7.3 78.6 17.1
P-2 2.9 2.4 25.9 16.4
P-3 1.2 2.1 22.7 15.2
Scenario 2
P-1 12.2 12.3 95.0 42.6
P-2 4.0 3.8 31.2 21.6
P-3 1.6 3.3 26.8 21.4
Table 14: Proposed Stormwater Basin Sizing Summary
Scenario Basin Pretreatment
Area (ac)
Infiltration
Area (ac)
Detention
Area (ac)
Total Stormwater
Area (ac)
Scenario
1
P-1 1.2 19.7 2.9 23.7
P-2 0.4 6.5 2.4 9.3
P-3 0.4 5.7 2.5 8.6
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 60
Scenario Basin Pretreatment
Area (ac)
Infiltration
Area (ac)
Detention
Area (ac)
Total Stormwater
Area (ac)
Scenario
2
P-1 2.1 23.8 7.1 32.9
P-2 0.6 7.8 3.6 12.0
P-3 0.6 6.7 3.6 12.0
Potential locations for these basins are based on buildable area, minimizing wetland
impacts and maintaining existing drainage patterns, see Figure 15, Figure 16, and Figure
17. These figures are schematic in nature, a detailed stormwater management plan
would be provided in later design stages with the potential for more stormwater BMPs.
Additionally, freeboard will be 2-feet above the High-Water Level determined by
modeling the 100-year critical event. The emergency overflows shall be 1.5-feet below
the lowest ground elevation adjacent to a structure.
Outlets to landlocked areas may be constructed if decreases in storage or increased
design elevations cause negative upstream or downstream impacts to infrastructure or
property. If no outlet is proposed for the existing or proposed landlocked basins,
freeboard will be determined by the greater of the following: 1) three feet above the
HWL determined by modeling back-to-back 100- year, 24-hour events. 2) Three feet
above the highest known water level. 3) Five feet above the HWL determined by
modeling a single 100-year, 24-hour event. In existing conditions, the greatest freeboard
comes from three feet above the HWL of the Back-to-back 100-year, 24-hour event.
Future stormwater management plan(s) for the study area will define the freeboard
requirements on a site-by-site, basin-by-basin basis.
Future stormwater BMPs would manage stormwater runoff and limit the volume of
discharge to existing landlocked areas. A climate trends analysis including the potential
for increased rainfall will help define any additional volume or rate control needs during
site design. The city code does not currently specify a requirement to evaluate increased
precipitation depths due to climate change. The precipitation depth for the 100-year,
24-hour storm is anticipated to increase by 20% by the end of the century based on the
paper, Equipping Municipalities with Climate Change Data to Inform Stormwater
Management.35 The runoff volume and rates would increase proportionally to the
precipitation depth assuming the same land use and storm duration. During site design,
stormwater BMPs may consider a conservative design to account for this increase in
runoff volume. Stormwater conveyance systems may also consider a conservative
design to account for the increase in peak flow.
35 Equipping Municipalities with Climate Change Data to Inform Stormwater Management. Available at:
https://conservancy.umn.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/e29c1999-088a-4958-b68f-c201153f4884/content.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 61
Under the proposed development, stormwater from the impervious areas of the site
will be conveyed to stormwater management BMPs using storm sewer and overland
flow. The conveyance system will be designed to the City of Monticello Engineering
Design Standards. The onsite BMPs will be designed to the published MPCA guidelines
as well as City of Monticello requirements. Pretreatment of stormwater is required prior
to discharge to an infiltration basin or filtration basin. It is anticipated that all onsite
BMPs would be constructed prior to any construction of impervious surface.
The soils across the AUAR study area primarily consist of hydraulic group A/B and are
potentially suitable for infiltration. Additional studies and percolation testing should be
considered to better understand site specific infiltration feasibility. As an alternative to
infiltration, biofiltration or wet stormwater ponds could be pursued as the stormwater
management approach for the site. The required treatment volume is determined by
the City of Monticello, MS4 General Permit and NPDES Stormwater Permit as a function
of new and reconstructed impervious area and will be required to meet the permanent
stormwater management requirements of the MS4 and NPDES permit. For both
scenarios, it will be required to retain 1.1 inches of runoff from new and reconstructed
impervious surfaces. If volume retention is deemed infeasible, biofiltration or wet
sedimentation may be used to treat stormwater runoff and must comply with the City’s
MIDS Flexible Treatment Options. Finally, existing off-site flows directed to the project
will need to be managed onsite using a regional system or maintain existing drainage
patterns via bypass flow. Conveyance strategies for offsite flow must be sized assuming
fully developed conditions.
Additional detailed stormwater analysis will be provided at later stages of the design
phase. This will include a stormwater management plan with existing and proposed
detailed drainage figures, narrative describing onsite stormwater management and
offsite conveyance, as well as applicable hydrologic and hydraulic modeling. Detailed
basin information (normal water level, water quality volume, high water level) will also
be provided in the stormwater management plan. The following stormwater
management and erosion control requirements will be adhered to:
• City of Monticello Engineering Design Standards for Stormwater Management.
• National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit requirements will be
determined for each new development within the AUAR study area.
Additionally, to mitigate additional winter salt use associated with the planned increase
impervious surfaces, the project proposer will implement a chloride management plan
with every project that requires an NPDES permit.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 62
Figure 15. Existing Drainage Conditions
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 63
Figure 16. Proposed Stormwater Basins for Scenario 1
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 64
Figure 17. Proposed Stormwater Basins for Scenario 2
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 65
iii. Water Appropriation – Describe if the project proposes to appropriate surface or
groundwater (including dewatering). Describe the source, quantity, duration, use, and
purpose of the water use and if a DNR water appropriation permit is required.
Describe any well abandonment. If connecting to an existing municipal water supply,
identify the wells to be used as a water source and any effects on, or required
expansion of, municipal water infrastructure. Discuss environmental effects from
water appropriation, including an assessment of the water resources available for
appropriation. Discuss how the proposed water use is resilient in the event of changes
in total precipitation, large precipitation events, drought, increased temperatures,
variable surface water flows and elevations, and longer growing seasons. Identify any
measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects from the water
appropriation. Describe contingency plans should the appropriation volume increase
beyond infrastructure capacity or water supply for the project diminish in quantity or
quality, such as reuse of water, connections with another water source, or emergency
connections.
AUAR Guidance: If the area requires new water supply wells, specific information about
that appropriation and its potential impacts on groundwater levels should be given; if
groundwater levels would be affected, any impacts resulting on other resources should
be addressed.
The water supply for the study area is anticipated to be obtained from the City of
Monticello water supply system. Currently, the city has a MnDNR water appropriations
permit to extract up to 800 million gallons per year from the Quaternary Buried Artesian
aquifer from four wells. From 2019 to 2023 the city pumped a total of 511 to 651 million
gallons per year of water from the aquifer. The City of Monticello has an average daily
water demand of approximately 2.2 million gallons per day and a maximum day demand
of 4.4 million gallons per day. The city is currently in the early stages of designing a
water treatment plant that will remove the iron and manganese from the water supply
(shown on Figure 18). The city has completed a preliminary study of their water supply
system and has determined that watermain extensions and potentially a water storage
tank will need to be constructed to service the study area. Depending on the specific
water demand, additional pumping capacity may need to be added to the water system.
Minimum watermain improvements for both scenarios include a 24-inch water main
extension along Fallon Avenue from Chelsea Road to 85th Street NE and a 16-inch
watermain extension along Edmondson Road from School Boulevard to the site to
complete a looped system (see Figure 18).
Currently, the study area has two irrigation wells that have a combined water
appropriation permits from the MnDNR totaling 76.3 million gallons per year (MGY). In
2023 there were 88.4 million gallons withdrawn through the two irrigation wells and a
low of 43.1 million gallons withdrawn in 2019. In both scenarios these two wells will be
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 66
abandoned and removed from service. This will lessen the demand on the aquifer by the
76 MGY that is currently being withdrawn per year.
The city has completed a preliminary aquifer analysis. Under either scenario, the DNR
may choose to perform further analysis before providing the required permits or
approvals for any new city wells to evaluate potential impacts on adjacent wells or
Pelican Lake.
Scenario 1
For the purposes of evaluating the maximum development capacity impact (worst case),
Scenario 1 assumes a water-cooled system could be implemented. If a specific project
advances that intends to use an air-cooled system or a combination or air and water-
cooled, the peak demand evaluated in this AUAR already covers the upper limit for
water use anticipated in terms of impacts and mitigation.
For Scenario 1, a technology campus is anticipated to have a maximum peak day water
demand of up to 3-3.5 million gallons per day (MGD) for non-contact cooling water use
during the months of April through October at full build out. This would be an average
daily demand of 750,000-875,000 GPD. This water demand is also intermittent and
dependent on the ambient temperature and will fluctuate greatly during these months.
It is anticipated that this system will only run 5-15% of the entire year. The estimated
yearly water demand could be as high as 250 – 300 million gallons per year, including
the domestic demand, which could range between 25,000 to 50,000 GPD depending on
the total number of employees at the facility. Onsite storage at the facility may be
implemented to shave the peak day demand to levels in the average daily demand
category.
Under Scenario 1, the city would need to increase their water appropriation from the
MnDNR to accommodate the full buildout of the project. The water demands will be
phased as the project is intended to be built over the next 10+ years to get to the full
build out (summarized in Table 15). The phasing will depend on the availability of water
for the facility and the specific developer’s development plans.
Table 15: Scenario 1 Water Demand Phasing
Year Demand
2025 0 million gallons per year
Ramp up Developer dependent
Full build out (approximately 2035) Up to 250-300 million gallons per year
Currently, the City of Monticello has approximately 149 MGY of available water
appropriations available. The existing irrigation wells within the study have an
appropriation of approximately 76 MGY. The future development is anticipated to
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 67
provide up to 75 MGY of recharge water back to the aquifer through the on-site RIB
system. The new net demand from the facility would be 99 MGY on the aquifer once the
demand from the current irrigation wells are removed and the 75 MGY is infiltrated to
the aquifer (see Table 17 for a breakdown). The infiltration process through the RIB will
not immediately recharge the aquifer but will occur over the next 10-20 years.
If using groundwater for cooling, water reuse systems, such as cycling water, will be
implemented to reduce water usage. This would entail having the cooling water cycle
two or more times for reuse.
For Scenario 1, the firm pumping capacity for the city will need to be increased and a
2.5-million-gallon water storage tank would likely need to be constructed near the site
in addition to the watermain extensions as shown on Figure 18. Under this scenario, the
water treatment plant capacity would need to be increased to accommodate up to 3-3.5
million gallons per day for peak demand. Scenario 1 will also require an increase in
capacity to the water treatment plant and additional elevated storage, raw watermain
piping and well modifications to meet capacity.
Scenario 2
Scenario 2 is assumed to be an office/warehouse type of industrial development. These
buildings typically contain approximately 30% office space, while 70% of the building
would be used as warehouse space. For industrial type buildings of this nature, water
demands are typically based on the estimated sewer demands for the project. The
estimated water demands are based on a flow rate of 274 gallons per day for every
2,400 square feet of office space and 7,000 square feet of warehouse space. For 5
million square feet of building, an estimated water demand would be 310,000 GPD. The
watermain extensions as previously outlined would need to be completed, but the
additional storage and increased pumping capacity would need further evaluation.
Additional water appropriations would be needed from the MnDNR.
If future development of Scenario 2 exceeds these maximum water demand
assumptions, then new water demands will need to be provided to the city and re-
evaluated as part of an AUAR update.
Table 16: Scenario 2 Water Demand Phasing
Year Demand
2025 0 million gallons per year
Ramp up Developer dependent
Full build out (approximately 2035) Up to 113,150,000 gallons per year
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 68
Table 17: Scenarios 1 and 2 Water Appropriations Summary
Scenario 1 Scenario 2
City’s Water
Appropriation 149 MGY
Current Property
Owner Appropriation 76 MGY
Demand from
Proposed
Development
250-300 MGY
Net new demand is less 76 MGY of current
property owner appropriation
It is anticipated that 75 MG will be recharged to
the aquifer over time
113.15
Net new demand is less
the 76 MGY current
property owner
appropriation
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 69
Figure 18: Proposed Water Infrastructure
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 70
iv. Surface Waters
1) Wetlands – Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to wetland
features, such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging, and vegetative
removal. Discuss direct and indirect environmental effects from physical
modification of wetlands, including the anticipated effects that any proposed
wetland alterations may have to the host watershed, taking into consideration
how current Minnesota climate trends and anticipated climate change in the
general location of the project may influence the effects. Identify measures to
avoid (e.g., available alternatives that were considered), minimize, or mitigate
environmental effects to wetlands. Discuss whether any required compensatory
wetland mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts will occur in the same minor
or major watershed and identify those probable locations.
The development proposed in Scenarios 1 and 2 would avoid wetland impacts to the
extent practicable. The wetland impacts proposed in Table 3 are based on
anticipated maximum development capacity impact (worst case) and are dependent
on final design for the chosen scenario. The project proposer will be required to
comply with all federal, state, and local wetland requirements including avoiding
and minimizing impacts to the extent practicable and mitigating any wetland
impacts that are unavoidable. If natural flowpaths between wetlands cannot be
maintained, piped connections may be installed to maintain hydraulic connectivity.
The City of Monticello requires the following wetland buffers based on anticipated
wetland quality:
Table 18. Wetland Buffers36
Wetland Quality Exceptional High Medium Low
Wetland buffer width (minimum) 50 feet 40 feet 10 feet 10 feet
Wetland buffer width (maximum) 100 feet 60 feet 50 feet 50 feet
Wetland buffer average width 75 feet 50 feet 30 feet 25 feet
Structure setback (from buffer) 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet
Total (average) 90 feet 65 feet 45 feet 40 feet
These wetland buffers will consist of natural vegetative ground cover and will be
incorporated into site design. Wetland investigators anticipate Wetlands 1, 3, 5, 6,
and 7 to be low quality and Wetlands 2 and 4 to be medium quality based on the
City of Monticello definition, see Figure 12.37 To ensure the correct buffer size is
36 City of Monticello. Code of Ordinances, Chapter 153.046 N.5. “Wetland buffer strips and setbacks”. Available at:
https://www.monticellomn.gov/315/City-Ordinances.
37 City of Monticello. Code of Ordinances, Chapter 153.012 “Wetlands”. Available at: https://www.monticellomn.gov/315/City-
Ordinances.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 71
used, the developer will classify the wetlands using the Minnesota Routine
Assessment Method (MnRAM) prior to construction.38
The MnDNR maps Wetland 4 as a Public Water Wetland. Impacts to this feature are
not anticipated, but if future development requires impact, a Public Waters Work
permit will be obtained prior to construction activities. Regulatory coordination with
the Minnesota DNR Hydrologist will be conducted to implement appropriate
avoidance and mitigation measures, if required. If the city annexes the study area, a
reclassification of this basin will occur. The MnDNR anticipates its classification to be
“Natural Environment”. Upon receiving this classification, the basin would be
subject to the Shoreland Overlay Ordinance established by the city.
2) Other surface waters – Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to
surface water features (lakes, streams, ponds, intermittent channels,
county/judicial ditches) such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging,
diking, stream diversion, impoundment, aquatic plant removal, and riparian
alteration. Discuss direct and indirect environmental effects from physical
modification of water features, taking into consideration how current Minnesota
climate trends and anticipated climate change in the general location of the
project may influence the effects. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or
mitigate environmental effects to surface water features, including in-water Best
Management Practices that are proposed to avoid or minimize
turbidity/sedimentation while physically altering the water features. Discuss how
the project will change the number or type of watercraft on any water body,
including current and projected watercraft usage.
AUAR Guidance: Water surface use need only be addressed if the AUAR area would
include or adjoin recreational water bodies.
No alterations to other surface waters are anticipated as part of the development
scenario. The AUAR study area does not contain and is not adjacent to any
recreational water bodies. No industrial development would occur within shoreland,
in accordance with city zoning ordinances.
Pelican Lake is less than two miles downstream of the AUAR study area. The MPCA
lists this waterbody as an impaired lake. Due to Pelican Lake’s hydrologic separation
from the AUAR study area, developers are not required to implement further
construction-related practices mitigating discharge to this waterbody. However, the
developer will design the site with runoff rates and volumes that provide no
measurable effects to pollution levels in Pelican Lake. The developer will manage
total suspended solids (TSS) and total phosphorus (TP) loading through volume
reduction practices or through the City of Monticello’s Flexible Treatment Option.
With the proposed stormwater management within the study area, the city is not
38 Available at: https://bwsr.state.mn.us/wetland-functional-assessment.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 72
anticipating negative effects to Pelican Lake, Gilcrist Lake, or Paradise Lake due to
the development of the AUAR study area.
13. CONTAMINATION/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS/WASTES
Pre-project Site Conditions – Describe existing contamination or potential environmental
hazards on or in close proximity to the project site, such as soil or groundwater
contamination, abandoned dumps, closed landfills, existing or abandoned storage tanks, and
hazardous liquid or gas pipelines. Discuss any potential environmental effects from pre-
project site conditions that would be caused or exacerbated by project construction and
operation. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from existing
contamination or potential environmental hazards. Include development of a Contingency
Plan or Response Action Plan.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) What’s In My Neighborhood (WIMN)
database was reviewed to determine if any known contaminated properties or potential
environmental hazards are within the study area. During this review, Kimley-Horn identified one
WIMN listing within the study area and ten within ¼-mile:
Table 19: MPCA “What’s in My Neighborhood?” Sites
Site ID Site Name Location Activity
Status Activities Program
151878
School Blvd &
85th St
Improvements
In Study Area Inactive Construction
Stormwater Stormwater
257130
Fritz
Companies
LLC
Within ¼-mile
of Study Area Active
Construction
Stormwater,
Wastewater,
Industrial
NPDES/SDS
Permit
Multiple
Programs
53396
Jacob
DesMarais
Farm
Within ¼-mile
of Study Area Active Feedlots Feedlots
263645 Haven Ridge
West
Within ¼-mile
of Study Area Active Construction
Stormwater Stormwater
16608 Monticello
Township Hall
Within ¼-mile
of Study Area Inactive Hazardous
Waste
Hazardous
Waste
96277 Featherstone Within ¼-mile
of Study Area Active Construction
Stormwater Stormwater
260340 Monticello
Town Hall
Within ¼-mile
of Study Area Active Construction
Stormwater Stormwater
246632 Edmonson
Ridge
Within ¼-mile
of Study Area Inactive Construction
Stormwater Stormwater
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 73
Site ID Site Name Location Activity
Status Activities Program
229214 Featherstone
4th Add.
Within ¼-mile
of Study Area Active Construction
Stormwater Stormwater
The School Blvd & 85th St Improvements listing is an inactive stormwater permit that was
terminated August 29, 2019. This listing is not anticipated to constitute an environmental hazard
to the study area.
A review of MN Department of Agriculture’s Chemical Incidents and Agricultural Spills database
was completed for the study area and no reports are documented within the study area or
within 1/4 mile of the study area.
A Phase I/II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) should be completed prior to construction
under either Scenario and coordinate with the MPCA on safe handling and disposal of any
contamination and hazardous materials found on the site prior to and during construction. An
asbestos and regulated materials (ARM) assessment would need to be completed prior to the
demolition of any structures and a demolition notification will be made to the MPCA/Minnesota
Department of Health (MDH) if asbestos containing material (ACM) is identified during the ARM
assessment. If ACM and/or other regulated solid waste is identified during the ARM assessment
requiring removal, generated solid waste will be disposed of at an MPCA permitted landfill.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 74
Figure 19: What’s in My Neighborhood Listings
Project Related Generation/Storage of Solid Wastes – Describe solid wastes generated/stored
during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of disposal. Discuss
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 75
potential environmental effects from solid waste handling, storage, and disposal. Identify
measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from the generation/storage of solid
waste including source reduction and recycling.
AUAR Guidance: Generally, only the estimated total quantity of municipal solid waste generated
and information about any recycling or source separation programs of the RGU need to be
included.
According to the Wright County Solid Waste Ordinance, the county will ensure compliance with
applicable laws, rules, and ordinances related to the management of solid and hazardous waste
as required by Minnesota Statutes, section 473.811.
Construction Generated Solid Waste
Construction under either development scenario would generate construction-related waste
materials such as wood, packaging, excess materials, and other wastes, which would either be
recycled or disposed of in the proper facilities in accordance with state regulations and
guidelines.
Operation Generated Solid Waste
Recycling for industrial buildings in the AUAR study area will be conducted in accordance with
the 2016 Recycling Law (Minnesota Statutes Chapter 115A, Section 115A.151 and Section
115A.552). Furthermore, Wright County Ordinance 156.026 requires all solid waste haulers to
offer recycling services within the county.
The proposed development from both scenarios would generate new demands on solid waste
management and sanitation services provided in the study area.
Scenario 1
During operation, it is estimated that the non-residential (office/light industrial) waste stream
be approximately 1,630 tons per year for Scenario 1 39. Types of data center waste typically
include paper, plastic, electronic, cardboard, metal, and glass waste. Data centers generally
generate more electronic waste (e-waste 40) compared to a typical office building. This is
primarily due to the nature of their operations with high turnover of equipment, the scale of
operations, and redundancy and backup systems needed. Functional equipment that is still in
good condition is often refurbished and sold on secondary markets. This extends the life of the
equipment and reduces waste. Additionally, data centers often partner with certified e-waste
recyclers that follow best practices for environmental responsibility and data security. If
equipment and other waste is unable to be recycled or re-used, it would go to a regulated
landfill.
Scenario 2
39 Based on the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board’s Climate Calculator Tool for a typical light industrial user.
40 Examples of e -waste include servers, routers, modems, cooling systems, power supplies, computers, storage media and
cabling.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 76
During operation, it is estimated that the non-residential (office/light industrial) waste stream
be approximately 16,297 tons per year for Scenario 2 41. Types of light industrial (office and
warehouse) waste typically include packaging (cardboard, plastic, wood), paper, organic,
electronic, cardboard, metal, glass, textile, and pallet/crate waste. If equipment and other waste
is unable to be recycled or re-used, it would go to a regulated landfill.
Scenario 1 and 2
The collection of MSW would be managed by a licensed waste hauler. All MPCA requirements
and other regulations pertaining to the use, handling and disposal of solid waste would be
adhered to. Recycling areas would be provided in compliance with the Minnesota State Building
code. When and where feasible, items will be evaluated for recycling or reused prior to disposal
at an offsite regulated landfill.
Project Related Use/Storage of Hazardous Materials – Describe chemicals/hazardous
materials used/stored during construction and/or operation of the project including method
of storage. Indicate the number, location, and size of any above or below ground tanks to
store petroleum or other materials. Discuss potential environmental effects from accidental
spills or releases of hazardous materials. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate
adverse effects from the use/storage of chemicals/hazardous materials including source
reduction and recycling. Include development of a spill prevention plan.
AUAR Guidance: Not required for an AUAR. Potential locations of storage tanks associated with
commercial uses in the AUAR should be identified (e.g., gasoline tanks at service stations).
Above ground fuel belly tanks for the back-up generators may be needed for the Scenario 1 for
emergency use. Details pertaining to the number, size, and location are unknown at this time
and will be determined as site planning advances. Each will be installed and maintained in
compliance with applicable state regulations for above ground storage tanks, including:
• New tanks and piping would be designed to applicable industry standards and guidance.
• Tank upgrades and repairs would follow applicable industry standards.
• Tank owners would clearly label all tanks and piping.
• Underground storage tanks of any size will not be used as above ground storage tanks.
It is possible that there may be some above ground storage or back-up generators with Scenario
2, but the quantity would be significantly less than Scenario 1. The developer would prepare an
Emergency Action Plan for the use of back-up generators under either scenario, which should
include routine maintenance and testing, proper and safe setup during an outage, and fuel
management. The plan must emphasize safety protocols, such as operating generators
outdoors, away from openings, and never "back-feeding" power through a wall outlet. The
developer would also be required to prepare a generators spill prevention plan. The purpose of
this plan is to focus on preventing oil/hazardous substance releases and complying with state
41 Based on the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board’s Climate Calculator Tool for a typical light industrial user.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 77
and federal rules for Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures for larger oil storage (over
1,320 gallons aboveground), requiring regular inspections and drills. Regulatory guidance for this
plan comes from the MPCA,
If either scenario results in a proposed project that anticipates the need for more than
1,000,000 gallons of fuel storage for backup generators and may exceed the threshold for air
emissions, a separate EAW will be required for these components of the project per Minnesota
Rules 4410.4300. The specific number of generators that would trigger this requirement for a
project is variable based on the type of generator and size of the belly tank; however, typically
this would be in the range of 100-200 generators.
Project Related Generation/Storage of Hazardous Wastes – Describe hazardous wastes
generated/stored during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of
disposal. Discuss potential environmental effects from hazardous waste handling, storage, and
disposal. Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from the
generation/storage of hazardous wastes including source reduction and recycling.
AUAR Guidance: Not required for an AUAR.
Not applicable.
14. FISH, WILDLIFE, PLANT COMMUNITIES, AND SENSITIVE ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES (RARE
FEATURES)
Describe fish and wildlife resources as well as habitats and vegetation on or near the site.
AUAR Guidance: The description of fish and wildlife resources should be related to the habitat
types depicted on the cover types map. Any differences in impacts between development
scenarios should be highlighted in the discussion.
Approximately 2% of the land within the study area has been previously disturbed for the
construction of residences as well as agricultural facilities and provides little to no habitat.
Approximately 81% of the land within the study area has been previously disturbed through
farming and provides limited, low-quality habitat. Approximately 13% of the land within the
study area is woodland, grassland, or wetland, and provides habitat for wildlife. These habitat
types are shown in Figure 7. Wildlife that can be found within the study area includes birds,
small mammals, and insects. There is one record of a state-listed species, Blanding’s turtle
(Emydoidea blandingii), within a mile of the study area. No native plant or animal communities
under the jurisdiction of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) are located within
the study area.42 There are no areas of biodiversity significance within one mile of the study
area. Additionally, there are no regionally significant ecological areas within one mile of the
study area. There are no trout streams within a mile of the study area.
42 USFWS. ND. Critical Habitat for Threatened & Endangered Species. Available at:
https://fws.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=9d8de5e265ad4fe09893cf75b8dbfb77.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 78
Describe rare features such as state-listed (endangered, threatened, or special concern)
species, native plant communities, Minnesota County Biological Survey Sites of Biodiversity
Significance, and other sensitive ecological resources on or within close proximity to the site.
Provide the license agreement number and/or correspondence number (ERDB) from which
the data were obtained and attach the Natural Heritage letter from the DNR. Indicate if any
additional habitat or species survey work has been conducted within the site and describe
results.
AUAR Guidance: For an AUAR, prior consultation with the DNR Division of Ecological Resources
for information about reports of rare plant and animal species in the vicinity is required. Include
the reference numbers called for on the EAW form in the AUAR and include the DNR’s response
letter. If such consultation indicates the need, an on-site habitat survey for rare species in the
appropriate portions of the AUAR area is required. Areas of on-site surveys should be depicted on
a map, as should any “protection zones” established as a result.
State-Listed Species
Kimley-Horn conducted a review of the DNR Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) in June
2024 per license agreement LA-2024-006 for the AUAR study area and area within a one-mile
buffer for state-listed threatened, endangered, and special concern species (see Appendix C).
The review identified the Blanding’s turtle southwest of the study area. The preferred habitat
for this species is upland areas within approximately one mile of wetlands, waterbodies, and
watercourses. Another NHIS review was requested in July 2025 and was received in August 2025
from the DNR for any potential changes since 2024. No changes were identified.
Federally-Listed Species
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) Service Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) tool
was used to identify federally-listed species within or near the AUAR Study Area. This review
identified two proposed threatened species, the monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) and the
western regal fritillary (Argunnis idalia occidentalis), as well as one experimental population
(non-essential), the whooping crane (Grus americana). The IPaC species list is included in
Appendix C.
Monarch Butterfly
The monarch butterfly is designated as a proposed threatened species for official listing by the
USFWS. The preferred habitat for this species is prairie where milkweed and flowers are
present. If this species is listed as threatened prior to development, effects on the species may
need to be reevaluated.
Whooping Crane
The whooping crane is designated as an experimental population, non-essential species by the
USFWS. Non-essential experimental populations are treated as threatened species on National
Wildlife Refuge and National Park land (require consultation under 7(a)(2) of the ESA) and as a
proposed species on private land (no section 7(a)(2) requirements, but Federal agencies must
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 79
not jeopardize their existence (section 7(a)(4))). The preferred habitat for the species includes
shallow marshes and adjacent, open grasslands.43
Western Regal Fritillary
The western regal fritillary is a butterfly species that is known to occur in Minnesota and was
identified as potentially occurring within the study area. The species is not federally listed but is
proposed threatened. Suitable habitat consists of native grasslands containing violets, nectar
sources, and tall vegetation. If this species is listed as threatened prior to development, effects
on the species may need to be reevaluated.
Migratory Birds – Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the taking, killing, possession, transportation,
and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests, except when specifically
authorized by USFWS. USFWS has the responsibility under the MBTA to prevent the mortality of
migratory birds and provide recommendations to mitigate or reduce potential impacts to
migratory birds, such as initiating clearing of forested habitats outside of the nesting season
(generally March 1 to August 31) or requiring nest surveys to be conducted prior to clearing or
other construction related activities to avoid injury to eggs or nestlings.
In addition to the species identified above, the IPaC results indicated that several migratory bird
species, including the bald eagle (Haliateetus leucocephauls), have the potential to be present in
the study area. Bald eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
Discuss how the identified fish, wildlife, plant communities, rare features, and ecosystems
may be affected by the project. Include a discussion on introduction and spread of invasive
species from the project construction and operation. Separately discuss effects to known
threatened and endangered species.
State Listed Species
Wetland drainage and degradation, vehicle collisions, and development of upland habitat near
wetlands can all negatively impact populations of the Blanding’s turtle. Both scenarios propose
impacts to wetlands, increases in vehicular traffic to the AUAR study area, and development of
upland surrounding wetlands; therefore, impacts to the Blanding’s turtle are possible given the
proximity of a NHIS listing to the AUAR study area.
Federally-listed Species
Monarch Butterfly
Agricultural users have disturbed most of the study area to cultivate crops. Natural prairie
vegetation does exist within the study area; however, the proposed scenarios are not expected
to appreciably diminish the quality or extent of available suitable habitat in the vicinity of the
study area.
Whooping Crane
43 USFWS. Whopping Crane. Available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/758
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 80
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. While potential suitable habitat may be
present, the study area is located on land outside of a federal National Wildlife Refuge or
National Park.
Western Regal Fritillary
Agricultural users have disturbed most of the study area to cultivate crops. Natural prairie
vegetation does exist within the study area; however, the proposed scenarios are not expected
to appreciably diminish the quality or extent of available suitable habitat in the vicinity of the
study area.
Invasive Species
Invasive species are a major cause of biodiversity loss and are considered biological pollutants
by the DNR. Invasive species can be moved on construction equipment, landscaping equipment,
and other debris.
Stormwater
Stormwater run-off can cause several environmental problems. When stormwater drains off a
construction site, it can carry sediment and pollutants that harm lakes, rivers, streams, and
wetlands, which in turn may harm wildlife.
Tree Removal
The AUAR study area contains approximately 26 acres of wooded land. Forests and forested
areas provide an important natural resource in Minnesota. Forest clearing and tree removal
creates a variety of environmental impacts including habitat destruction, biodiversity
impairment, soil erosion, and loss of carbon sinks. Any tree clearing will be conducted in
accordance with Ordinance 847 which amends Chapter 153.061 of the Monticello Code of
Ordinances.
Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to fish,
wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources.
State-listed Species
Blanding’s Turtle
The MnDNR determined future development within the study area would not likely affect any
rare features per letter received on July 17, 2024. This determination is valid for one year; thus,
Kimley-Horn submitted a new Natural Heritage Review request to the MnDNR on July 16, 2025.
A letter was received on August 14, 2025. The MnDNR determined that Blanding’s turtle may be
impacted by the proposed project and required the following mitigation efforts for the
Blanding’s turtle, which include:
• Avoid wetland and aquatic impacts during hibernation season, between September 15 and April
15, if the area is suitable for hibernation.
• Limit erosion and sediment control to wildlife friendly erosion control.
• Check bare ground within construction areas for turtles before the use of heavy equipment or any
ground disturbance.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 81
• The Blanding’s turtle flyer must be given to all contractors working in the area.
• Report any sightings using the DNR Plant and Animal Observation Form.
• If turtles are in imminent danger, move them by hand out of harm’s way; otherwise, they are to
be left undisturbed. Directions on how to move turtles safely can be found at Helping Turtles
Across the Road.
Federally-listed Species
Monarch Butterfly
The use of native plant species in seed mixes may be used to promote pollinator friendly habitat
within the study area.
Whooping Crane
Experimental population, non-essential status does not provide species protection under the
ESA listing process outside of federal lands; therefore, negative impacts to this species are
unlikely.
Western Regal Fritillary
The use of native plant species in seed mixes may be used to promote pollinator friendly habitat
within the study area.
Invasive Species
State requirements necessitate the control and spread of state listed noxious weeds and/or
invasive weeds if encountered prior to construction. Disturbed areas would be reestablished
using appropriate native and stabilization seed mixes. Methods to avoid spreading noxious
weeds and/or invasive species will be incorporated into project specifications (and/or SWPPP
when developed). According to the DNR, some methods that can prevent the spread of invasive
species during construction include:
• Inspecting construction equipment and removing any visible plant, seeds, mud, dirt
clods, and animals when arriving and leaving a site.
• Using certified weed-free products such as weed-free seed or hay whenever possible.
• Using mulch, soil, gravel, etc., that is free of invasive species whenever possible.
• Inspecting soil and plant material during planting for signs of invasive species and
removing or destroying the invasive species or the plant and associated soil if the
invasive species cannot be separated out.
Tree Removal
Any hardwood tree 6 inches or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), softwood tree 8 inches
or more in DBH, or conifer over 12 feet in height must be replaced at a rate of 1:1 aggregate
caliper inch (ACI) to removed DBH inches per Ordinance 847 which amends Chapter 153.061 of
the Monticello Code of Ordinances. In accordance with this ordinance, the developer will also
conduct a tree survey prior to construction. Although some tree removal will be necessary, the
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 82
scope of removal will be limited as much as feasible to support the proposed development.
Trees will be planted in accordance with requirements in the city of Monticello’s Tree Manual.
Stormwater
The proposed development scenarios include stormwater management and treatment of all
stormwater runoff within the AUAR study area.
Greenway Corridor
A conceptual greenway corridor is planned within the study area that could provide connections
between and among natural open spaces and be a natural area for wildlife.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 83
15.HISTORIC PROPERTIES
Describe any historic structures, archeological sites, and/or traditional cultural properties on or in
close proximity to the site. Include 1) historic designations; 2) known artifact areas; and 3)
architectural features. Attach letter received from the Minnesota State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO). Discuss any anticipated effects to historic properties during project construction
and operation. Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects
to historic properties.
AUAR Guidance: For an AUAR, contact with the State Historic Preservation Office and State
Archeologist is required to determine whether there are areas of potential impacts to these
resources. If any exist, an appropriate site survey of high probability areas is needed to address the
issue in more detail. The mitigation plan must include mitigation for any impacts identified.
The Minnesota Statewide Historic Inventory Portal (MnSHIP) was reviewed to identify historic
resources. According to MnSHIP, there are three historic sites in the vicinity of the AUAR study area.
None of the historic sites are listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
Table 20. Historic Sites
Address Property
Name
National Register
Listing Status
Distance from Study
Area
8817 TH 25
Monticello Township,
MN 55362
Nickerson
Farm Inventoried – Not Listed Approximately 1,700 feet
north
7607 TH 25
Monticello Township,
MN 55261
Goetzke
Property Inventoried – Not Listed Approximately 2,000 feet
west
N/A Trunk Highway
25 Not eligible Adjacent to northwest
boundary
According to the Minnesota Office of the State Archeologist (OSA) Public Viewer map, there are
known archeological records within and/or in the vicinity of the study area. Prior to construction
under either scenario, developers will need to consult with both the OSA and Minnesota Indian
Affairs Council.
An archeological consultant (In Situ) conducted a Phase I Archaeological Survey of the study area in
2025. This included a background literature review within and surrounding the study area along with
a field survey conducted in March 2025. The field survey consisted of 408 acres of the study area
that covered everything except for a few areas on the northeast, northwest and southwest portions
of the study area. Field conditions prevented the investigators from evaluating the entire AUAR
study area. The remaining area (totaling 142 acres) will be subject to archaeological survey at a later
date, unless development is not planned in these areas.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 84
The survey identified three new archaeological sites which were all pre-contact, isolated, lithic finds
that the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) considers as unevaluated for the National Register
of Historic Places. Future coordination with SHPO will be required to determine the eligibility for the
three archaeological sites identified in the Phase I Archaeological Survey prepared in April 2025.
If a federal nexus is identified during preparation of project permits (i.e. if a USACE Section 404
permit is required due to impacts to regulated wetlands), the project proposer must also consider
potential impacts on historic properties under Section 106, which requires consultation with the
State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and other relevant parties to identify any potential
mitigation needed. If human remains are recovered at any time during archaeological investigation
or development, all activities must stop and consultation initiated with the Office of the State
Archaeologist and Minnesota Indian Affairs Council.
Coordination with the State Historic Preservation Office and State Archeologist is ongoing. Both
agencies received a copy of the AUAR Scoping Document and the AUAR for review.
16. VISUAL
Describe any scenic views or vistas on or near the project site. Describe any project related visual
effects such as vapor plumes or glare from intense lights. Discuss the potential visual effects from
the project. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate visual effects.
AUAR Guidance: Any impacts on scenic views and vistas present in the AUAR should be addressed.
This would include both direct physical impacts and impacts on visual quality or integrity. EAW
Guidelines contains a list of possible scenic resources.
If any non-routine visual impacts would occur from the anticipated development, this should be
discussed here along with appropriate mitigation.
Scenarios 1 and 2
The AUAR study area includes existing agricultural land and small residential sites that are not near
any unique designated scenic views or vistas. Any development of agricultural land will have an
impact on the visual look of a property and will be subject to increased regulation under city
ordinances. Future development would conform with the city ordinances for building height,
building form, landscape screening, outdoor storage areas, and lighting to avoid impacts to
neighboring properties and species. No significant visual impacts are anticipated. Future
development will need to follow the City of Monticello’s landscaping and screening standards
applicable to the Scenario development and land uses to provide a visual buffer to neighboring
properties. Scenario 1 is expected to have larger buffers and setback requirements between nearby
uses around the perimeter of the buildings as compared to Scenario 2. Additionally, tree mitigation
and replacement plans would be coordinated with the City as required by the ordinance and
incorporated in the development plans.
As building and site designs advance, lighting practices will be selected to address known ecological
concerns and prevent avoidable impacts to insects, wildlife, rare plants, and adjacent natural areas.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 85
Guidance from the USFWS to minimize blue light, uplight, and backlight will be adhered to the
extent practicable.
17. AIR
Stationary Source Emissions – Describe the type, sources, quantities, and compositions of any
emissions from stationary sources such as boilers or exhaust stacks. Include any hazardous air
pollutants, criteria pollutants, and any greenhouse gases. Discuss effects to air quality
including any sensitive receptors, human health, or applicable regulatory criteria. Include a
discussion of any methods used to assess the project’s effect on air quality and the results of
that assessment. Identify pollution control equipment and other measures that will be taken
to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects from stationary source emissions.
AUAR Guidance: This item is not applicable to an AUAR. Any stationary air emissions source
large enough to merit environmental review requires individual review.
Not applicable to an AUAR. If any potential emission generation (e.g., from generators) from
future development in either scenario is above the threshold for an air quality
permit/environmental review, then that specific project would be subject to additional
environmental review beyond what is evaluated in this AUAR. The trigger for this is described in
Minn. Rules 4410.4300 Subp. 15:
A. For construction of a stationary source facility that generates 250 tons or more per year or
modification of a stationary source facility that increases generation by 250 tons or more per year of
any single air pollutant, other than those air pollutants described in item B, after installation of air
pollution control equipment, the PCA is the RGU.
B. For construction of a stationary source facility that generates a combined 100,000 tons or more per
year or modification of a stationary source facility that increases generation by a combined 100,000
tons or more per year of greenhouse gas emissions, after installation of air pollution control
equipment, expressed as carbon dioxide equivalents, the PCA is the RGU.
Vehicle Emissions – Describe the effect of the project’s traffic generation on air emissions.
Discuss the project’s vehicle-related emissions effect on air quality. Identify measures (e.g.,
traffic operational improvements, diesel idling minimization plan) that will be taken to
minimize or mitigate vehicle-related emissions.
AUAR Guidance: Although the MPCA no longer issues Indirect Source Permits, traffic-related air
quality may still be an issue if the analysis in Item 18 indicates that development would cause or
worsen traffic congestion. The general guidance from the EAW form should still be followed.
Questions about the details of air quality analysis should be directed to MPCA staff.
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has developed a screening method
designed to identify intersections that will not cause a carbon monoxide (CO) impact above
state standards. MnDOT has demonstrated that even the 10 highest traffic volume intersections
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 86
in the Twin Cities do not experience CO impacts 44. Therefore, intersections with traffic volumes
lower than these 10 highest intersections will not cause a CO impact above state standards.
MnDOT’s screening method demonstrates that intersections with total daily approaching traffic
volumes below 82,300 vehicles per day will not have the potential for causing CO air pollution
problems. None of the intersections in the study area exceed the criteria that would lead to a
violation of the air quality standards.
Additionally, an estimate of GHG emissions from vehicle traffic both from construction and
operation for both scenarios can be found in item 18: Greenhouse Gas Emissions/Carbon
Footprint.
Dust and Odors – Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of dust
and odors generated during project construction and operation. (Fugitive dust may be
discussed under Item 16a). Discuss the effect of dust and odors in the vicinity of the project
including nearby sensitive receptors and quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken to
minimize or mitigate the effects of dust and odors.
AUAR Guidance: Dust and odors need not be addressed in an AUAR, unless there is some unusual
reason to do so. The RGU might want to discuss as part of the mitigation plan, however, any dust
control ordinances in effect.
Scenarios 1 and 2
The proposed development may generate temporary fugitive dust emissions during
construction. The City of Monticello regulates dust according to Minnesota pollution control
standards. Dust emissions can be controlled by sweeping, watering, sprinkling, as appropriate or
as prevailing weather and soil conditions dictate. Dust emissions are not anticipated during
operations as all ground surfaces will either be impervious or vegetated.
18. GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG) EMISSIONS/CARBON FOOTPRINT
a. GHG Quantification – For all proposed projects, provide quantification and discussion of
project GHG emissions. Include additional rows in the tables as necessary to provide project-
specific emission sources. Describe the methods used to quantify emissions. If calculation
methods are not readily available to quantify GHG emissions for a source, describe the
process used to come to that conclusion and any GHG emission sources not included in the
total calculation.
About Greenhouse Gases (GHGs)
Certain gases in the earth’s atmosphere, classified as greenhouse gases (GHGs), play a critical
role in determining the earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters the earth’s
atmosphere from space. A portion of the radiation is absorbed by the earth’s surface and a
smaller portion of this radiation is reflected back toward space. This absorbed radiation is then
44 Source: MnDOT CO Hot Spot Screening Method. https://www.dot.state.mn.us/project -development/subject-guidance/air-
quality/process.html#:~:text=The%20Twin%20Cities%20area%20has,carbon%20monoxide%20(CO)%20violations
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 87
emitted from the earth as low-frequency infrared radiation. The frequencies at which bodies
emit radiation are proportional to temperature. Because the earth has a much lower
temperature than the sun, it emits lower-frequency radiation. Most solar radiation passes
through GHGs; however, infrared radiation is absorbed by these gases. As a result, radiation that
otherwise would have escaped back into space is instead “trapped,” resulting in a warming of
the atmosphere. This phenomenon, known as the greenhouse effect, is responsible for
maintaining a habitable climate on earth.
The primary GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane
(CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). Fluorinated gases also make up a small fraction of the GHGs that
contribute to climate change. Examples of fluorinated gases include chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs),
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and nitrogen
trifluoride (NF3); however, it is noted that these gases are not associated with typical land use
development. Human-caused emissions of GHGs exceeding natural ambient concentrations are
believed to be responsible for intensifying the greenhouse effect and leading to a trend of
unnatural warming of the earth’s climate, known as global climate change or global warming.45
Project-related GHG Emissions
This section estimates emissions of the following GHGs for each scenario:
• Carbon dioxide (CO2)
• Nitrous oxide (N2O)
• Methane (CH4)
The projected GHG emissions are provided on an average annual basis using the CO2 equivalent
(CO2e) and include the proposer’s best estimate of average annual emissions over the proposed
life/design service life of future development. The estimates also include emissions from the
construction and operating phases of the scenario. Emissions were estimated using the
Minnesota Environmental Quality Board’s Climate Calculator Tool 46 and are summarized in
Table 21, Table 22, and Appendix D by project phase (i.e., construction and operations) and
source type (e.g., material inputs, building energy consumption).
Construction emissions for the two proposed scenarios are based on length of construction and
are from material inputs, transport of those material inputs, employee commuting, construction
equipment, land use change, and construction waste.
Table 21: Construction Emissions
Emissions Source Scenario 1 Project-Related CO2e
Emissions (total)
Scenario 2 Project-Related CO2e
Emissions (total)
Material inputs 117,457.85 197,881.21
Transportation of
material inputs 2,383.50 4,049.70
45 Summarized from U.S. EPA, Overview of Greenhouse Gases: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases
46 Available at: https://www.eqb.state.mn.us/environmental-review/climate-assessments.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 88
Emissions Source Scenario 1 Project-Related CO2e
Emissions (total)
Scenario 2 Project-Related CO2e
Emissions (total)
Employee commuting 126,621.97 211,458.70
Construction equipment 19,939.55 19,939.55
Land use change 38.15 43.02
Construction waste 398.93 664.89
Total 266,839.95 434,037.07
Table 22: Annual Operational Emissions47
Emissions Source Scenario 1 Proposed CO2e
Emissions (tons/year)48
Scenario 2 Proposed CO2e
Emissions (tons/year)
Building energy consumption 127,404.78 190,317.19
Industrial Processes N/A 2,793,425.57
HFC leakage 247.18 372.73
On-road vehicles 5,626.18 21,190.94
Treatment of waste off-site 913.99 8,269.44
Total 134,192.13 3,013,575.87
b. GHG Assessment
i. Describe any mitigation considered to reduce the project’s GHG emissions.
Scenario 1 and Scenario 2
The following are potential design strategies and sustainability measures that are under
consideration for the proposed development to reduce emissions for both scenarios:
• Create new open space with native vegetation and habitat
• Expand urban tree planting
• Require energy efficient appliances
Implementation of the above strategies will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis based
on code requirements, feasibility, availability of materials, schedule, and tenant
considerations. For Scenario 1, most technology park developers have sustainability
goals pertaining to water, energy, carbon, and recycling that would be implemented on
this site.
ii. Describe and quantify reductions from selected mitigation, if proposed to reduce the
project’s GHG emissions. Explain why the selected mitigation was preferred.
47 While the existing conditions within the AUAR study area do emit GHGs, Kimley-Horn assumed the emissions to be negligible
when compared to the emissions of the development scenarios; therefore, Kimley-Horn did not include the annual operational
emissions of the existing conditions in Table 22.
48 Note: Scenario 1’s estimated annual emissions are based on the EQB’s recommended Climate Calculator Tool and is based on
a typical light industrial user.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 89
• By creating new vegetated areas from previously cropped land, the project
would sequester carbon dioxide that would not have been captured without the
land conversion. Trees and other vegetation also incorporate carbon into their
biomass when growing.
• Tree planting can provide shade, which reduces building cooling demands.
When this demand is reduced, it also reduces energy consumption and
corresponding GHG emissions.
• Selecting energy-efficient appliances reduces energy consumption and
corresponding GHG emissions.
The potential mitigation listed in Item 18.b.i. was selected to comply with best
management practices for new construction and reduce GHG emissions where
practicable during operations.
iii. Quantify the proposed project’s predicted net lifetime GHG emissions (total tons per
number of years) and how those predicted emissions may affect achievement of the
Minnesota Next Generation Energy Act goals and/or other more stringent state or
local GHG reduction goals.
The Next Generation Energy Act requires the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
in the state by 80 percent between 2005 and 2050, while supporting clean energy,
energy efficiency, and supplementing other renewable energy standards in Minnesota.
The MPCA’s biennial GHG emissions reduction report from 2021 identifies strategies for
reducing emissions in the three economic sectors with the highest emissions –
transportation, electricity generation, and agriculture, forestry, and land use.
The expected lifespan of the project is 50 years, this equates to a total estimated
7,915,791.36 CO2e metric tons over the lifetime of the development under Scenario 1
and 190,289,315.97 CO2e metric tons over the lifetime of the development under
Scenario 2 (including both construction and operations phases). The proposer will
evaluate implementing the sustainability measures listed in Item 18.b.i to reduce
operational emissions to the extent practicable. The proposed development will be built
in compliance with state regulations and city building codes.
19. NOISE
Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of noise generated during
project construction and operation. Discuss the effect of noise in the vicinity of the project
including 1) existing noise levels/sources in the area; 2) nearby sensitive receptors; 3)
conformance to state noise standards; and 4) quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken
to minimize or mitigate the effects of noise.
AUAR Guidance: Construction noise need not be addressed in an AUAR, unless there is some unusual
reason to do so. The RGU might want to discuss as part of the mitigation plan, however, any
construction noise ordinances in effect.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 90
If the area will include or adjoin major noise sources, a noise analysis is needed to determine if any
noise levels in excess of standards would occur, and if so, to identify appropriate mitigation
measures. With respect to traffic-generated noise, the noise analysis should be based on the traffic
analysis of Item 18.
Existing Noise
The AUAR study area is currently cropland, woodland, wetland, grassland, and some residences. The
existing noise sources at the site consist mainly of the surrounding roadways.
Construction Noise
As stated in the AUAR guidelines, construction noise need not be addressed unless there is some
unusual reason to do so. No unusual circumstances have been identified for either scenario that
would necessitate a detailed construction noise analysis. Construction activities are prohibited
between the specific hours as set by ordinance, currently 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.49 Construction of
the proposed project would comply with these requirements. The City is looking into amending the
hours of construction currently set and future development will need to comply with any changes
that occur in the future.
Traffic Generated Noise
A sound increase of 3 dBA is barely noticeable by the human ear, a 5 dBA increase is clearly
noticeable, and a 10 dBA increase is heard as twice as loud. For example, if the sound energy is
doubled (i.e., the amount of traffic doubles), there is a 3 dBA increase in noise, which is just barely
noticeable to most people. On the other hand, if traffic increases by a factor of 10, the resulting
sound level will increase by about 10 dBA and be heard as twice as loud.
Traffic volumes in the project area are either on roadways that do not have receivers that are
sensitive to noise, or the traffic levels attributable to the project are well below the amount that
would generate a sound increase that could be noticeable.
The change in traffic noise levels is not anticipated to be readily perceptible.
Operational Noise
Scenario 1
For Scenario 1, the main source of noise, depending on the type of technology park use, could
include computers and ventilation/cooling systems within the building, and the testing of generators
up to once per month and operating in the case of emergency. Depending on a variety of factors
(i.e., equipment manufacturer, operational capacity, etc.), chiller equipment at a typical data center
could range from around 65 dB(A) up to around 80 dB(A) at a distance of approximately 30 feet.
Given the quantity of chillers needed for a typical data center building, these noise levels would be
higher. Manufactures can apply treatments to the equipment to make them quieter, or noise
attenuating barriers can be designed and implemented to help reduce noise.
Depending on the manufacturer specifications for the various pieces of operational equipment, it is
possible for low frequency noise to be emitted. Similar to chillers, manufacturers offer mitigation
49 City of Monticello. Code of Ordinances Chapter 130.09. Available at: https://www.monticellomn.gov/315/City-Ordinances.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 91
packages that could be applied directly to the equipment. Additionally, absorptive screening barriers
can be implemented to assist with reducing operational noise levels, including low frequency noise.
Scenario 2
Light industrial uses like those proposed under Scenario 2 can include outdoor storage areas.
Operation of large vehicles in these storage areas could generate unwanted noise.
Scenarios 1 and 2
Operational noise from both scenarios could include emergency generators that are only expected
to operate during maintenance and testing as well as during emergency conditions for power
outages. When used, generations could range between 75 dB(A) to 85 dB(A). Depending on the
specific use for each Scenario, it is expected that Scenario 1 may require more backup generators
than Scenario 2. Sensitive receptors within a mile of the study area include residential homes,
farmsteads, commercial developments, and churches. In some cases, more robust noise enclosures
are needed as well as physical barriers to assist with containing operational noise from emergency
generator use.
The site plans developed for specific projects should show the proposed locations and types of
mitigation, with the estimated noise reductions for all areas projected to exceed noise standards.
The State of Minnesota regulates industrial operations standards in Chapter 7030 of the Minnesota
Administrative Rules (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/rules/7030). The chapter establishes the
thresholds in Table 23. Both scenarios are required to abide by these thresholds, in addition to other
applicable City ordinances. For Scenario 1, these thresholds will apply whether the cooling system
uses just water or a hybrid of air and water.
Table 23. Minnesota Industrial Operations Noise Standards
Maximum Permissible Hourly Sound Pressure Levels (dBA)
Noise Area Classification (NAC) Daytime/Nighttime
L10 L50
Residential housing, religious
activities, camping and picnicking
areas, health services, hotels,
educational services
65/55 60/50
Retail, business and government
services, recreational activities,
transit passenger terminals
70/70 65/65
Manufacturing, fairgrounds and
amusement parks, agricultural
and forestry activities
80/80 75/75
dBA: An A-weighted decibel is a unit for measuring sound levels that is adjusted to represent how the
human ear hears sound
L10: sound level, in dBA, which is exceeded ten percent of the time for a one-hour survey
L50: sound level, in dBA, which is exceeded fifty percent of the time for a one-hour survey
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 92
Minnesota law permits the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to enforce the State's noise
rules; however, the enforcement of noise rules are generally conducted at the local level. Under
either of the scenarios, noise attenuation (the reduction or loss of sound energy as it travels through
a medium or structure) measures will be incorporated into the project design to ensure MPCA noise
rules and City noise ordinances are followed.50 As site development progresses, developers would
be responsible for assessing whether operational noise exceeds established noise standards which
may require studies of ambient and proposed noise conditions and then mitigation for compliance.
The noise study process begins by conducting ambient (existing) noise measurements from the
project site. These measurements provide a baseline understanding of the current sound
environment. Following the collection of ambient data, a noise model is developed to replicate the
existing conditions. This model serves as a tool for evaluating various scenarios by simulating the
placement of noise-generating equipment within the proposed building layout.
Through the use of multiple scenarios, the model assists in determining optimal locations for
equipment in order to minimize noise impacts on adjacent properties. If the modeling indicates that
noise levels may exceed established ordinances, appropriate noise abatement or mitigation
measures are identified and incorporated into the project design. This approach ensures the project
remains in compliance with all applicable noise regulations.
20. TRANSPORTATION
Describe traffic-related aspects of project construction and operation. Include 1) existing and
proposed additional parking spaces; 2) estimated total average daily traffic generated; 3)
estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated and time of occurrence; 4) source of trip
generation rates used in the estimates; and 5) availability of transit and/or other alternative
transportation modes.
Parking
Minimum off-street parking and loading requirements listed in Section 153.067 and 153.068 of the
City of Monticello Code of Ordinances will be adhered to.
Existing Conditions
The following provides a description of the public roadways within the AUAR area:
85th Street NE (or CR 106 West of Minnesota State Highway 25) is an east-west roadway that serves
as the northern boundary of the AUAR area. It is a two-lane undivided roadway with dedicated right-
and left-turn lanes at the intersection with Minnesota State Highway 25 (MN 25). 85th Street NE is
classified as a major collector, according to the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan. According to the
MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application, the existing Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) along 85th
Street is approximately 1,797 vehicles per day (vpd) west of MN 25, as of 2024. No AADT data is
available east of MN 25. The posted speed limit is 45 mph west of MN 55 and unposted east of MN
55, with a statutory speed limit of 55 mph.
50 MPCA N oise Pollution Rules Available at: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/rules/7030/.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 93
Minnesota State Highway 25 (MN 25) is a generally north-south state highway that runs west of the
AUAR area. It is a two-lane undivided roadway about 1000’ south of 85th Street, where it transitions
to a four-lane divided roadway to the north. There are dedicated left and right turn lanes along MN
25 at the intersections with 85th street NE and CSAH 37. MN 25 is classified as Principal Arterial -
other, according to the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan. According to the MnDOT Traffic Mapping
Application, the existing Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) along MN 25 is approximately 15,009
vehicles per day (vpd) north of 85th Street, as of 2024. The posted speed limit is 60 mph.
Edmonson Avenue NE (CR 117) is a north-south roadway that serves as the eastern boundary of the
AUAR area. It is a two-lane undivided roadway that connects to the AUAR site via 85th Street NE.
There are no existing turn lanes along this road. Edmonson Avenue NE is classified as a minor
collector according to the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan. Edmonson Avenue NE has an AADT of
1,808 vpd north of CSAH 37 and 1,930 vpd north of 85th Street NE. The posted speed limit is 55 mph.
CSAH 37 is an east-west County State Aid Highway (CSAH) located south of the AUAR area. It is a
two-lane undivided roadway and is classified as a major collector south of the AUAR area according
to page 99 of the 2045 Monticello Comprehensive Plan. According to the MnDOT Traffic Mapping
Application, the road has an AADT of approximately 4,873vpd west of MN 25 as of 2024. The posted
speed limit is 55 mph.
Davidson Avenue NE is a north-south roadway that serves as the western boundary of the AUAR
area. It is a two-lane undivided local roadway with no turn lanes. There is no AADT data available for
Davidson Avenue NE and there is no posted speed limit. The speed limit was assumed to be 45 mph
for analysis purposes.
School Boulevard is a three-lane undivided east-west roadway with one travel lane in each direction
and a shared left turn lane. School Boulevard is classified as a minor arterial, according to the
Monticello 2040 Plan. MnDOT reports an AADT of 5,994 west of Edmonson Avenue and 6,464 west
of Fenning Avenue, as of 2024. The posted speed limit is 40 mph, with a school speed limit of 30
mph enforced when children are present.
Fallon Avenue is a two-lane undivided north-south roadway. Fallon Avenue is classified as a local
road according to the Monticello 2040 Plan. MnDOT reports an AADT of 3,847 north of School
Boulevard, as of 2024. The posted speed limit is 30 mph.
Traffic Generation
The trip generation of the two previously shown development scenarios were estimated based on
data from the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. Scenario 1 utilized the Land Use Code (LUC)
for Data Center (LUC 160) as the best available representation of the number of trips generated,
while Scenario 2 utilized the code Industrial Park (LUC 130). Note that a significant portion of site
trips in Scenario 2 are anticipated to be heavy vehicle trips. The trip generation is shown below in
Table 24. The full traffic study conducted for the AUAR can be found in Appendix E.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 94
Table 24: Trip Generation Forecasts
Scenario AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily
Total In Out Total In Out
Scenario 1 330 182 148 270 81 189 2,970
Scenario 2 1,700 1,377 323 1,700 373 1,327 16,850
Availability of Transit
There are no transit services available near the site. It is not anticipated that there will be significant
change in transit usage.
Discuss the effect on traffic congestion on affected roads and describe any traffic
improvements necessary. The analysis must discuss the project’s impact on the regional
transportation system. If the peak hour traffic generated exceeds 250 vehicles or the total
daily trips exceeds 2,500, a traffic impact study must be prepared as part of the EAW. Use the
format and procedures described in the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s Access
Management Manual, Chapter 5 (available at:
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/accessmanagement/resources.html) or a similar local guidance.
AUAR Guidance: For AUAR reviews, a detailed traffic analysis will be needed, conforming to the
MnDOT guidance as listed on the EAW form. The results of the traffic analysis must be used in
the response to Items 16 and 17.
A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was completed in August 2025 based on the projected trip generation
of the proposed scenarios. The results of this study can be found in Appendix E. Based on the
detailed findings of the Monticello Industrial TIA, the area’s transportation network is expected to
support development within the AUAR study area with mitigation. The TIA identified improvements
that could be constructed to mitigate possible future traffic impacts associated with development
within the AUAR study area. Metrics for traffic analysis include intersection delay as measured by
Level of Service (LOS) and queue lengths.
The traffic analysis report includes intersection capacity analyses for intersections at the site access
points as well as intersection operations within the vicinity of the project (see locations identified in
Figure 20). Access to the study area is anticipated to be provided via three locations:
• North Access (along 85th Street NE)
• East Access (along Edmonson Avenue NE)
• West Access (Scenario 2 only; along Davidson Avenue NE / via future connection to MN 25)
The location of the proposed access points will adhere to the access management standards
outlined in the City of Monticello’s 2040 Transportation Plan.
Based on the results of the Traffic Impact Analysis, all study intersections are anticipated to operate
at an overall LOS D or better under Existing and No-Build (2030 and 2045) scenarios. Some
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 95
movements at signalized intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS E, but all intersections are
anticipated to operate acceptably overall.
Under Scenario 1 conditions, delays see a minor increase, but all analyzed intersections are
expected to remain at generally acceptable LOS through the analyzed design year (2045). A
southbound right turn lane is recommended at Edmonson Avenue NE & East Access and a
northbound right turn lane at Edmonson Avenue & 85th Street.
Under Scenario 2 conditions, delays see a larger increase than Scenario 1 conditions, and some
study area intersections are anticipated to experience operational issues if left unmitigated. A traffic
signal or roundabout is anticipated to be required at MN 25 & Future Roadway (proposed collector).
Analysis also indicates that a roundabout or traffic signal will be required at School Boulevard &
Fallon Avenue by the opening year (the city is planning to construct a roundabout here in the long
term). All other study intersections are anticipated to operate acceptably with some turn lane
improvements.
Table 25 shows the LOS for the study area intersections in each analysis scenario. Mitigated
conditions results (where applicable) are shown after a slash. With mitigation, all intersections are
expected to operate at generally acceptable levels of service in all scenarios.
Bike and Pedestrian Infrastructure
For both scenarios, pedestrian access will be provided via the greenway corridor proposed to be
located along the southern portion of the study area. Connections to external pathway and/or
sidewalk systems will be required for both scenarios, to be constructed along all directly adjacent
roadways. For Scenario 2, sidewalks are required along all internal public streets. These
improvements would be provided by the developer(s).
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 96
Table 25: Existing and Projected Intersection LOS
Intersection
Existing
LOS No-Build LOS Scenario 1 LOS Scenario 2 LOS
2025 2030 2045 2030 2045 2030 2045
AM Peak Hour
MN 25 & 85th Street A A A A B B B
Edmonson Avenue & 85th Street A A A A A B C
MN 25 & CSAH 37 B A A A A A B
CSAH 37 & Davidson Avenue A A A A A A A
CSAH 37 & Edmonson Avenue B B B B B B B
MN 25 & Davidson Avenue /
Proposed Collector A A C B B C D / A
School Boulevard & Fallon Avenue A A A B A D / A B
85th Street & North Access - - - A A C C
Edmonson Avenue & East Access - - - A A B B
PM Peak Hour
MN 25 & 85th Street A A B B B B B
Edmonson Avenue & 85th Street A A A A B C D
MN 25 & CSAH 37 B A C A C B C
CSAH 37 & Davidson Avenue A A A A A A B
CSAH 37 & Edmonson Avenue B B C B C C F / E
MN 25 & Davidson Avenue /
Proposed Collector A - D - E F F / B
School Boulevard & Fallon Avenue A A A B A C / A B
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 97
Intersection
Existing
LOS No-Build LOS Scenario 1 LOS Scenario 2 LOS
2025 2030 2045 2030 2045 2030 2045
85th Street & North Access - - - A A C C
Edmonson Avenue & East Access - - - A A B C
Construction Conditions Analysis for Scenario 1
In addition to the traffic study, a construction conditions analysis will also be completed with a focus
on Scenario 1 (Technology Park) as the construction period is anticipated to see significantly higher
trip generation than what will occur at full build out during typical operations of this type of
development. No construction analysis will be conducted for Scenario 2, as the construction is
anticipated to be less trip-intensive than the typical operations of this development type and the
peak trip generation would be the same for both scenarios during construction. However, length of
construction is anticipated to vary between the two scenarios due to Scenario 2 being higher density
and would likely be developed by multiple developments. The analysis was conducted to determine
if additional mitigation would be required during the initial construction phase of the development
for Scenario 1. The analysis indicated that all study intersections operate at LOS A or B with the
addition of the estimated Scenario 1 construction traffic (see Appendix E for more information).
Future Road Network
As shown on Figure 3: Development Scenario 1 and Figure 4: Development Scenario 2, it is
anticipated that both development scenarios will include a future road network within the study
area. Scenario 1 is expected to have a new public road connection off 85th Street NE into the site
with only private roads internal to the site (not shown as these are developer dependent). Scenario
2 is anticipated to have a grid system of internal public roads to facilitate traffic between various
tenants.
Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate project related transportation
effects.
The following provides a summary of mitigation improvements that were identified as part of the
traffic analysis for the Monticello Industrial development. It should be noted that mitigation
measures noted in the mitigation plan are only the mitigation measures that are the direct result of
the development in addition to the background mitigation. The planned single-lane roundabouts at
MN 25 & County Road 37 and School Boulevard & Fallon Avenue are assumed to be in place in the
analysis years 2030 and 2045, respectively.
Existing (2025) Conditions
• No Mitigation Necessary
Opening Year (2030) No-Build Conditions
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 98
• No Mitigation Necessary
Opening Year (2030) Build Scenario 1 Conditions
• Install a dedicated eastbound right-turn lane at 85th Street & North Access
• Install a northbound left turn lane at Edmonson Avenue & 85th Street
• Install side street stop control at site access points (one approach lane is acceptable for each)
• Install pedestrian pathways along all arterial and collector roadways impacted by the project. As
parcels begin to develop on the AUAR area, install sidewalk and trail connections to connect to
existing pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure.
Construction Conditions (2030) Scenario 1
• Install an eastbound right turn lane at 85th Street & North Access
• Install northbound left and southbound right turn lane s at Edmonson Avenue & East Access
• Install a northbound right turn lane at Edmonson Avenue & 85th Street
• Install side street stop control at site access points (one approach lane is acceptable for each)
• Reconstruction of roads heavily impacted by construction (i.e., 85th Street) will be required.
Opening Year (2030) Build Scenario 2 Conditions
• Install dedicated right and left-turn lanes at 85th Street & North Access
• Install dedicated right and left-turn lanes at Edmonson Avenue & East Access
• Install northbound left- and right-turn lanes at Edmonson Avenue & 85th Street
• Install Side Street Stop control at all site access points (single-lane approaches are acceptable)
• Install pedestrian pathways along all arterial and collector roadways impacted by the project. As
parcels begin to develop on the AUAR area, install sidewalk and trail connections to connect to
existing pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure
• Install a single-lane roundabout at School Boulevard & Fallon Avenue
Design Year (2045) No-Build Conditions
• Install a southbound left turn lane at MN 25 & Future Roadway (proposed collector) and install a
side street stop control at the intersection.
Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 1 Conditions
• All modifications from Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1 Condition
• Install a southbound left turn lane at MN 25 & Future Roadway (proposed collector) and install a
side street stop control at the intersection.
Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 2 Conditions
• All modifications from Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2 Conditions
• Install a traffic signal or roundabout at MN 25 & Future Roadway (proposed minor collector).
Install a northbound right-turn lane at this intersection.
• Alternatively, the intersection could be installed as a right-in/right-out or a three-
quarter access intersection to minimize side street delays.
• Install a southbound right turn lane at Edmonson Avenue & 85th Street NE
• Install northbound and southbound left turn lanes at CSAH 37 & Edmonson Avenue and monitor
the intersection for further mitigation needs.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 99
• Install a northbound bypass lane for right turns at MN 25 & CSAH 37.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 100
Figure 20: Traffic Study Intersections
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 101
21. CUMULATIVE POTENTIAL EFFECTS
AUAR Guidance: Because the AUAR process by its nature is intended to deal with cumulative
potential effects from all future developments within the AUAR area, it is presumed that the
responses to all items on the EAW form automatically encompass the impacts from all anticipated
developments within the AUAR area.
However, the total impact on the environment with respect to any of the items on the EAW form
may also be influenced by past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects outside of the
AUAR area. The cumulative potential effect descriptions may be provided as part of the responses to
other appropriate EAW items, or in response to this item.
Describe the geographic scales and timeframes of the project related environmental effects
that could combine with other environmental effects resulting in cumulative potential effects.
Cumulative effects are defined as the “effect on the environment that results from the
incremental effects of a project in addition to other projects in the environmentally relevant
area that might reasonably be expected to affect the same environmental resources, including
future projects actually planned or for which a basis of expectation has been laid, regardless of
what person undertakes the other projects or what jurisdictions have authority over the
projects.”51 The geographic areas considered for cumulative effects are those areas adjacent to
the AUAR study area, and the timeframe considered includes projects that would be
constructed in the reasonably foreseeable future (by 2030) by other private and public entities
that have made future project plans and timelines publicly available.
Describe any reasonably foreseeable future projects (for which a basis of expectation has
been laid) that may interact with environmental effects of the proposed project within the
geographic scales and timeframes identified above.
There is one reasonably foreseeable project that may interact with the environmental effects of
the development scenarios. The second of five phases of the Haven Ridge West housing
development is currently under construction approximately 0.5 miles east of the study area.
This includes approximately 300 single family homes. The remaining two phases are yet to be
completed and timing is dependent on the developers plans and the market.
Discuss the nature of the cumulative potential effects and summarize any other available
information relevant to determining whether there is potential for significant environmental
effects due to these cumulative effects.
Based on the information obtained for the future phase of the Haven Ridge West housing
development summarized in Item 21.b, potential cumulative effects may include transportation,
water resources (wastewater and water appropriation), and utilities. In addition to this project,
other future public and private projects are likely to occur in the city of Monticello and nearby
51 Minnesota Rules, part 4410.0200, subpart 11a
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 102
municipalities that may affect these same resources. The potential for adverse cumulative
effects is described for each of these items in the following paragraphs.
Water Resources (wastewater and water appropriation)
Item 12.b.i and iii outlines the wastewater generation and water demand estimates that would
be associated with the development scenarios described in this AUAR. It is anticipated that the
City’s current sewer system has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed development
for Scenario 2 with the extension of the sanitary sewer trunk main and an amendment to water
appropriations may be needed in the future.
The city has completed an initial study analyzing the capacity of the local aquifer. This
assessment considered the potential effects of future development under both Scenario 1 and
Scenario 2 and future city growth. Based on the results of this analysis, the aquifer does not
appear to be impacted, even when accounting for other anticipated growth within the city.
Therefore, adverse cumulative impacts related to wastewater and water appropriation are not
anticipated.
Traffic
A traffic analysis for the development scenarios studied in this AUAR was completed and
identifies mitigation strategies to improve traffic movement as described in Item 20
(Transportation) and Appendix E. The traffic study takes into account cumulative traffic growth
with the future phases of known projects such as the Haven Ridge residential development and
other potential growth from unknown future projects by applying a background growth rate
calculation to align with the City of Monticello’s anticipated population growth to determine
appropriate transportation mitigation for the next 20 years. Future development in the
surrounding areas that are anticipated to increase traffic congestion would also be required to
individual traffic impact studies and identify mitigation measures to address the impacts.
Therefore, adverse cumulative impacts related to traffic congestion are not anticipated.
Other Technology Park/Data Center Projects
For regional impacts associated with these facilities, it is expected that review by state agencies
will be coordinated to study and address expected impacts. These types of projects would also
be required to complete an environmental review and if developed, coordinate with state and
local agencies for the applicable permits and approvals, which would have the authority to
determine if there were adequate resources available at the time of application and will be
individually mitigated to ensure minimal cumulative impacts occur.
22. OTHER POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
AUAR Guidance: If the project may cause any additional environmental effects not addressed by
Items 1 to 19, describe the effects here, discuss the how the environment will be affected, and
identify measures that will be taken to minimize and mitigate these effects.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 103
Power Needs (Scenario 1)
The proposed development scenarios will have a higher power need and consumption than what is
currently required for the existing land uses within the AUAR study area. Future power needs for
any proposed development would need to be coordinated with the current power provider for the
AUAR study area.
Under Scenario 1, the project proposer would request the utility company complete a System
Impact Study on the existing grid network to understand the existing capacity and future
infrastructure needs to provide sufficient capacity for the proposed development scenarios while
maintaining the grid system for the surrounding area. After that step, a Facilities Study would be
completed and look at what improvements would be needed (i.e. substation/transmission lines).
This Facilities Study would also include the cost associated with needed improvements (which would
be paid for by the project proposer) and how those improvements would support larger grid
improvements beyond this study area. For Scenario 1, the cost of these improvements would not
affect current rate payers. The utility company’s model would be coordinated with the Midcontinent
Independent System Operator’s model to ensure the project properly integrates into the broader
energy system.
After the studies are completed, additional permits, environmental reviews, and approvals would be
identified specific to power lines, transmission lines, and substations for onsite and offsite
improvements under Scenario 1. Typically, the utility company will design and permit the grid
infrastructure projects through the MN Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and apply for associated
development permits/approvals needed then construct the improvements.
Site Security (Scenario 1)
Depending on the chosen scenario and developer, security measures could include fencing,
buffering from public roads, private roads, and security personnel. These measures would address
anti-terrorism and other safety concerns.
Electromagnetic Field Radiation (Scenario 1 and 2)
Electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation refers to the waves of the electromagnetic field produced by
electrically charged objects. These waves propagate through space carrying electromagnetic radiant
energy. EMF radiation can come from both natural sources such as the Earth’s magnetic field and
manmade sources, such as electronics/electronic appliances, cell phones, and power lines.
Types of EMF Radiation
Non-ionizing Radiation: This includes extremely low-frequency (60Hz) EMFs (like those from power
lines) and low frequency (up to 1015Hz) optical radiation (like visible light, infrared, and ultraviolet).
Non-ionizing radiation is generally considered less harmful, as it does not have enough energy to
remove tightly bound electrons from atoms.
Ionizing Radiation: This includes ultraviolet rays (part of it), X-rays, and gamma rays, which have
higher frequencies (greater than 1015Hz) and the energy to ionize atoms and molecules, potentially
causing damage to cells and DNA.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 104
Potential Impacts of EMF Radiation
The health and environmental impacts of EMF radiation have been a subject of extensive study.
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), low-frequency EMF exposures from power lines
and electrical appliances are far below the levels that can produce significant heating or long-term
tissue damage. A committee of the National Research Council, the operating arm of the National
Academy of Sciences, reported in 1996 that it had found no persuasive evidence that household
appliances or power transmission lines presented a threat.52
Project Related EMF Radiation
Scenario 1 and Scenario 2
Both scenarios propose new electronics and utilities that would emit EMF levels. Scenario 1 would
emit EMF levels typical of industrial and utility applications and Scenario 2 would emit EMF levels
typical of office and warehouse applications. Under Scenario 1, potential for new high voltage
transmission lines servicing a data center could be constructed. The EMFs generated by these
transmission lines are within the non-ionizing range and would comply with federal regulatory
standards to ensure public safety including the National Electrical Safety Code, which sets forth
guidelines for the installation and operation of power lines to control EMF exposure.
The project's design would include EMF mitigation strategies to ensure that the EMF radiation levels
remain well within the safety thresholds. These strategies include maintaining safe distances from
residential areas, using EMF shielding techniques where necessary, and adhering to the
recommended exposure limits set by health and safety regulatory bodies. Additionally, the EMF
emissions from high voltage transmission lines are closely monitored and regulated to prevent any
adverse environmental or health impacts.
MITIGATION PLAN
This Mitigation Plan is submitted as part of the AUAR to provide reviewers and regulators with an
understanding of the actions that are advisable, recommended, or necessary to protect the
environment and minimize potential impacts by the proposed development scenarios. This Mitigation
Plan will be revised and updated based on comments received during the AUAR comment period.
This Mitigation Plan is intended to satisfy the AUAR rules that require the preparation of a mitigation
plan that specifies measures or procedures that will be used to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the
potential impacts of development within the AUAR study area. Although mitigation strategies are
discussed throughout the AUAR document, this plan will be formally adopted by the RGU as their action
plan to prevent potentially significant environmental impacts.
The primary mechanism for mitigation of environmental impacts is the effective use of ordinances,
rules, and regulations. The plan does not modify the regulatory agencies’ responsibilities for
implementing their respective regulatory programs nor create additional regulatory requirements. The
52 World Health Organization (2014). Electromagnetic fields and public health. Retrieved from WHO website. Available at:
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/electromagnetic-fields -and-public-health-mobile -phones
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 105
plan specifies the legal and institutional arrangements that will assure that the adopted mitigation
measures are implemented.
In addition to the anticipated permits and approvals listed in Table 6, the mitigation measures
developed in the AUAR process are outlined in Table 26. The mitigation items identified are regulatory
requirements and/or mitigation measures that reduce the level of potential impact of development
within the study area. The plan is formatted consistent with the sections of the AUAR for ease of
reference.
Table 26: Mitigation Plan
Resource Area Mitigation Responsible Party
Climate Adaption
and Resilience
Scenario 1: Most technology park developers have
sustainability goals pertaining to water, energy, carbon,
and recycling that would be implemented on this site.
Developer53
Scenarios 1 and 2: Water efficient irrigation design will be
considered for any landscape irrigation systems. Developer
Scenarios 1 and 2: Energy efficient building shells,
appliances, equipment and lighting will be incorporated
into the building design.
Developer
Scenarios 1 and 2: Retention of existing and planting of
native trees and landscaping will reduce runoff and
mitigate heat island effect.
Developer
Scenarios 1 and 2: Parking areas will be evaluated to
potentially reduce impervious areas within the AUAR
study area.
Developer
Scenarios 1 and 2: Green infrastructure such as
infiltration basins, infiltration trenches, rainwater
gardens, bioretention areas without underdrains,
vegetated swales with impermeable check dams will be
implemented for both scenarios.
Developer
Scenarios 1 and 2: A chloride management plan will be
implemented per any state and local guidelines or
requirements. Chloride conscious design will be
considered to minimize salt usage by the development.
This could include considering potential locations of snow
melt, ice formation, and tree shading.
Developer
Scenarios 1 and 2: Addition of pathways and planned
future roundabouts at Minnesota State Highway 25 and
85th Street and the intersection of Fallon Avenue and
School Boulevard will reduce vehicle emissions from
Developer / City
53 Where “Developer” is noted as responsible party, this could be one or several developers depending on how development
occurs throughout the study area.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 106
Resource Area Mitigation Responsible Party
stalling vehicles (that would typically occur at a stop sign
or signal) and encourage pedestrian activity.
Land Use
Scenarios 1 and 2: For development as described in the
Project Description, the city would annex the AUAR study
area prior to development and incorporate it into an
applicable zoning district and overlay districts, subject to
land use permit review.
City
Scenario 1: Future development would be required to
comply with the list of review requirements as described
in Table 7 for a data center or similar technology campus
use and comply with the future Data Center PUD Zoning
requirements.
Developer
Scenarios 1 and 2: Incorporate the Natural Resource
Inventory & Assessment conceptual future greenway
corridor as site planning advances.
Developer
Scenarios 1 and 2: The project proposer will use native
plants in landscape design and will maintain existing
significant floodplain, woodland, and wetland complexes
as feasible.
Developer
Geology, Soils,
and Topography
Scenarios 1 and 2: A National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Stormwater
Permit will be obtained prior to any earthwork or grading
activities within the AUAR study area. A Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be provided as a
part of the permit.
Developer
Scenarios 1 and 2: Where required, slope stabilization
will be provided by means of vegetation establishment,
erosion control blankets, or other standard methods of
erosion and sediment control. The proposed
development within the AUAR study area will require
compliance with the City of Monticello’s erosion and
sediment control standards as well as stormwater
management requirements.
Developer
Water Resources
- Stormwater
Scenarios 1 and 2: Infrastructure will be built within the
AUAR study area to convey stormwater to stormwater
management areas to help achieve the appropriate water
quality treatment. Design of the site and stormwater
management facilities will be used to reduce the risk of
flooding in the AUAR study area. Infiltration areas will be
used to improve water quality and reduce stormwater
runoff in the project vicinity.
Developer
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 107
Resource Area Mitigation Responsible Party
Scenarios 1 and 2: Maintenance and monitoring of the
stormwater management areas will be performed to
ensure long term effectiveness of the facilities.
Developer (if
regional stormwater
basins are
determined then
City)
Scenarios 1 and 2: Best management practices pertaining
to stormwater management will be adhered to during
construction.
Developer
Scenarios 1 and 2: Stormwater Best Management
Practices (BMP) shall meet criteria for Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) water quality
requirements.
Developer
Scenarios 1 and 2: Stormwater BMPs shall be designed to
meet the City of Monticello’s criteria for rate control as
well as runoff volume reduction and will be designed to
maintain stormwater runoff rates at or below the level of
existing conditions.
Developer
Scenarios 1 and 2: The use of native plants will be
considered for landscaping and stormwater features to
absorb water, reduce water demand for irrigation, and
protect water resources from pollution.
Developer
Scenarios 1 and 2: The impact of more severe
precipitation events on offsite flows will be evaluated
with conveyance and/or storage of offsite flow.
Conservative design principals will be incorporated.
Developer
Scenarios 1 and 2: A stormwater management plan will
be prepared during development plan review for each
proposed development with existing and proposed
drainage figures, narrative describing onsite stormwater
management and offsite conveyance, as well as
applicable hydrologic and hydraulic modeling. Detailed
basin information (normal water level, water quality
volume, high water level) will also be provided in the
stormwater management plan.
Developer
Scenarios 1 and 2: Future stormwater BMPs would
manage stormwater runoff and limit the volume of
discharge to existing landlocked areas. Adequate
freeboard would be maintained for stormwater BMPs
and landlocked areas.
Developer
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 108
Resource Area Mitigation Responsible Party
Water Resources
- Surface Water
Scenarios 1 and 2: Avoidance measures will be taken to
avoid impacts to the wetlands within the AUAR study
area to the extent practicable. As design plans advance
and if impacts to wetlands are found necessary, the
project proposer will obtain appropriate permits and
purchase wetland banking credits. Buffers will also be
installed around wetlands to protect water quality from
adjacent development per City Wetland Overlay
ordinance.
Developer
Scenarios 1 and 2: Future development would need to
comply with the city’s Shoreland Ordinance, which
applies to the 1,000-foot area surrounding the OHWL of
the DNR Public Water Wetland in the southeast corner of
the study area.
Developer / City
Water Resources
– Water
Appropriation
Scenarios 1 and 2: Technology Park and Light Industrial
land use water demands can be highly variable depending
upon the business operation or manufacturing process
used at each property. At the time of the five year AUAR
update evaluation, water demands from individual
properties should be evaluated and estimated future
demands revised, if necessary.
Developer / City
Scenarios 1 and 2: The presence or absence of unverified
wells will be confirmed and any existing wells will be
sealed according to MDH requirements.
Developer
Scenario 1: The City will need to install a new well to
serve the entirety of the study area and satisfy City-wide
water demands and shall be constructed in accordance
with local ordinances and Minnesota Statutes Chapter
103I and Minnesota Rules Chapter 4725. This will also
include additional elevated storage, raw watermain
piping and well modifications to meet capacity. The City
would also implement monitoring wells after the City
drills the new well. The water data from these monitoring
wells would be sent to the MnDNR to evaluate if there is
additional mitigation needed for adjacent private wells.
City
Scenarios 1 and 2: Both scenarios would require the City
to request an amendment to water appropriations from
the MnDNR.
City
Scenario 1: The City would need to increase the capacity
of the future water treatment plant that the city is
constructing in 2026.
City
Scenarios 1 and 2: Construct the extension of the water
supply and distribution system according to the site
according to Figure 18 and in accordance with Minnesota
Department of Health standards.
City
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 109
Resource Area Mitigation Responsible Party
Water Resources
- Wastewater
Scenarios 1 and 2: Construct infrastructure
improvements needed to expand the capacity of the
wastewater system to the site as shown on Figure 14.
City
Scenarios 1 and 2: If the specific project that requires an
expansion, modification or replacement of a municipal
sewage collection system resulting in an increase in
design average daily flow of any part of that system by
1,000,000 gallons per day or more if the discharge is to a
wastewater treatment facility with a capacity less than
20,000,000 gallons per day, then an EAW would need to
be completed per Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 18(A) with
MPCA as the RGU.
Developer
Scenario 1: If cooling water discharge is permitted to be
treated through a Rapid Infiltration Basin (RIB) system
through the MPCA it will be designed to meet MPCA and
MDH standards. As part of the MPCA review, the permit
application will undergo an EAW process and 30 day
public comment process prior to any issuance of a permit.
Additionally, a full water quality analysis of the effluent
will be provided as part of the RIB permit process and a
hydrogeological study would be conducted, including soil
testing, to determine any limitations for a RIB within the
study area. These studies would address the rate of
infiltration to the proposed RIBs, the rate of recharge to
the aquifer, as well as the required size of RIBs. Through
the permitting process, any pre-treatment requirements,
including existing minerals in the water system, would be
determined by the MPCA prior to discharge to the RIBs.
The system acts as a large filter, trapping most impurities
at the surface. Maintenance will involve periodic removal
of the top few inches of mineral deposit-laden soil, which
will be disposed of in a landfill. Monthly Discharge
Monitoring Reports will be required according to the
NPDES permit. The developer will be responsible for
hiring a licensed professional to prepare these reports
and send them to the MPCA. Monitoring will occur
monthly to dispose of any sediment build up.
Developer
Scenario 1: The proposed RIB will follow the DWSMA
guidelines set by the MDH. Developer
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 110
Resource Area Mitigation Responsible Party
Water Resources
- Groundwater
Scenario 1: If a future development requires 310,000 GPD
or less of non-contact cooling water and domestic
wastewater then that discharge could go to the city’s
municipal sanitary sewer collection system. This would
not require any improvements to the WWTP. Biological
operational adjustments would be needed to
accommodate the slight decrease in organic loading from
the non-contact cooling water.
Developer / City
Scenario 1: Other alternative options that could be
investigated include re-use of non-contact cooling water
for spray irrigation for crop fields or obtaining a surface
discharge permit for non-contact cooling water discharge.
Both require a permit and review from the MPCA.
Developer
Scenario 1: The RIB system is a natural filtration of water
into the ground and will allow the water to be naturally
cleaned by the soil to less any adverse impact on the
ground water. This will also allow for the aquifer to
become recharged from the cooling water system
infiltration. The infiltration process through the RIB
system will not immediately recharge the aquifer but will
occur over the next 10-20 years.
Developer
Scenario 1: If using groundwater for cooling, water reuse
systems, such as cycling water, will be implemented to
reduce water usage.
Developer
Scenarios 1 and 2: The City would complete a well
capacity and aquifer pumping plan in coordination with
the DNR.
City
Scenario 1: The wellhead protection boundary area as
part of the DWSMA will need to be increased with any
new wells.
City
Scenario 1: A future hydrogeological analysis would be
needed to site the RIB system, which would include soil
testing, to understand any limitations for a RIB system
within the study area.
Developer
Scenario 1: The city will monitor post construction for any
contaminants that exist in the current drinking water
system that may enter the RIB system, as required by
MPCA through the review and permitting process.
Developer and City
Contamination/
Hazardous Waste
Scenarios 1 and 2: Ensure compliance with applicable
laws, rules, and ordinances related to the management of
solid and hazardous waste as required by Minnesota
Statutes 2020, section 473.811, subdivision 5c.
Developer
Scenarios 1 and 2: Coordinate with the MPCA regarding
the required plans, material handling, and disposal. Developer
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 111
Resource Area Mitigation Responsible Party
Scenarios 1 and 2: Development would both generate
construction-related waste materials such as wood,
packaging, excess materials, and other wastes, which will
be either recycled or disposed in the proper facilities.
Developer
Scenarios 1 and 2: An Emergency Action Plan will be
created for any backup generators if installed. See Item
13 for more information.
Developer
Scenarios 1 and 2: A Phase I/II Environmental Site
Assessment (ESA) should be completed prior to
construction and coordinate with the MPCA on safe
handling and disposal of any contamination and
hazardous materials found on the site prior to and during
construction.
Developer
Scenarios 1 and 2: If either scenario results in a proposed
project that anticipates the need for more than 1,000,000
gallons of fuel storage for backup generators and may
exceed the threshold for air emissions, an EAW will be
required for these components of the project per
Minnesota Rules 4410.4300. As part of the E AW process,
a 30-day agency and public review and comment period
will occur.
Developer
Scenarios 1 and 2: The placement of any potential
storage of hazardous materials and wastes will not be in
floodplain areas.
Developer
Scenario 1: Developer would be required to prepare a
generators spill prevention plan per MPCA guidance. Developer
Fish, Wildlife,
Plant
Communities, and
Sensitive
Ecological
Resources
Scenarios 1 and 2: Invasive species will be controlled
during site construction. Additionally, appropriate
measures will be taken to control the spread of invasive
species will be controlled during construction and
landscaping:
• Inspecting construction equipment and removing
any visible plant, seeds, mud, dirt clods, and
animals when arriving and leaving a site.
• Using certified weed-free products such as weed-
free seed or hay whenever possible.
• Using mulch, soil, gravel, etc., that is free of
invasive species whenever possible.
• Inspecting soil and plant material during planting
for signs of invasive species and removing or
destroying the invasive species or the plant and
associated soil if the invasive species cannot be
separated out.
• Native and drought-tolerant species will be
utilized in landscaped areas.
Developer
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 112
Resource Area Mitigation Responsible Party
Scenarios 1 and 2: Wildlife friendly erosion control
methods will be utilized within the study area to minimize
impacts to wildlife using the site during construction.
Developer
Scenarios 1 and 2: The use of native plant species,
including flowering plants, in seed mixes may be used to
promote pollinator friendly habitat within the study area.
Developer
Scenarios 1 and 2: Climate-appropriate native plantings
and stormwater BMPs will provide suitable habitat for
small mammals, insects, and bird species.
Developer
Scenarios 1 and 2: The developer will conduct a tree
survey prior to construction and tree replacement will
comply with the City’s tree protection ordinance.
Developer
Scenarios 1 and 2: A future greenway corridor will be
incorporated as site planning advances. Developer / City
Scenarios 1 and 2: The DNR required specific mitigation
measures to avoid impacts to the state-listed threatened
Blanding’s turtle. These efforts include:.
• Avoid wetland and aquatic impacts during
hibernation season, between September 15 and
April 15, if the area is suitable for hibernation.
• Limit erosion and sediment control to wildlife
friendly erosion control.
• Check bare ground within construction areas for
turtles before the use of heavy equipment or any
ground disturbance.
• The Blanding’s turtle flyer must be given to all
contractors working in the area.
• Report any sightings using the DNR Plant and
Animal Observation Form.
• If turtles are in imminent danger, move them by
hand out of harm’s way; otherwise, they are to be
left undisturbed. Directions on how to move turtles
safely can be found at Helping Turtles Across the
Road.
Developer
Scenarios 1 and 2: The developer will coordinate
development details with the DNR as project(s) advance.
Avoidance plans will be submitted for review and
approval in advance of construction.
Developer
Historic
Properties
Scenarios 1 and 2: If a federal nexus is identified during
preparation of project permits additional coordination
with SHPO and other relevant parties may be required.
Developer
Scenarios 1 and 2: The remaining area not previously
surveyed will be subject to archaeological survey prior to
construction, unless development is not planned in these
areas.
Developer
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 113
Resource Area Mitigation Responsible Party
Scenario 1 and 2: Further coordination with SHPO will be
required to determine the eligibility for the three
archaeological sites identified in the Phase I
Archaeological Survey prepared in April 2025.
Developer
Scenarios 1 and 2: If human remains are recovered at any
time during archaeological investigation or development,
all activities must stop and consultation initiated with the
Office of the State Archaeologist and Minnesota Indian
Affairs Council.
Developer
Visual
Scenarios 1 and 2: Lighting practices will be selected to
address known ecological concerns and prevent
avoidable impacts to insects, wildlife, rare plants, and
adjacent natural areas. Guidance from the USFWS that
recommends a lighting system that minimizes uplight and
backlight would be adhered to the extent practicable. City
ordinance requirements are also applicable.
Developer
Scenarios 1 and 2: Through the development review
process, the City will review future site and building plans
to ensure is it conforming with city ordinances for
building height, form, material, landscape screening and
lighting. Note: site buffering requirements related to
Scenario 1 will be defined in the Data Center PUD Zoning
Ordinance once this has been finalized.
Developer / City
Air
Scenarios 1 and 2: Fugitive dust emissions from
construction will be controlled by sweeping, watering,
sprinkling, as appropriate or as prevailing weather and
soil conditions dictate.
Developer
Scenarios 1 and 2: An air permit and additional
environmental reviewmay be required from the MPCA for
backup generators. The trigger for this is described in
Minn. Rules 4410.4300 Subp. 15:
A. For construction of a stationary source facility that
generates 250 tons or more per year or modification
of a stationary source facility that increases
generation by 250 tons or more per year of any single
air pollutant, other than those air pollutants
described in item B, after installation of air pollution
control equipment, the PCA is the RGU.
Developer
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 114
Resource Area Mitigation Responsible Party
B. For construction of a stationary source facility that
generates a combined 100,000 tons or more per year
or modification of a stationary source facility that
increases generation by a combined 100,000 tons or
more per year of greenhouse gas emissions, after
installation of air pollution control equipment,
expressed as carbon dioxide equivalents, the PCA is
the RGU.
This process will include a public review and comment
period as part of the environmental review.
GHG
Emissions/Carbon
Footprint
Scenarios 1 and 2: The following are potential design
strategies and sustainability measures that are under
consideration for the proposed development to reduce
emissions for both scenarios:
• Create new open space with native vegetation
and habitat
• Expand urban tree planting
• Require energy efficient appliances
Developer
Noise
Scenarios 1 and 2: Construction activities may result in
temporarily elevated noise levels. To the extent possible,
construction activities will be conducted to minimize
noise levels and nighttime construction activities.
Construction will not occur between 10:00 PM and 7:00
AM.
Developer
Scenarios 1 and 2: Further noise evaluation may be
conducted as required to demonstrate compliance with
local and state regulations. Noise attenuation measures
will be incorporated into the project design to ensure
MPCA noise rules and city noise ordinances are followed.
The site plans developed for specific projects should show
the proposed locations and types of mitigation, with the
estimated noise reductions for all areas projected to
exceed noise standards.
Developer
Scenario 1: More robust noise enclosures are needed as
well as physical barriers to assist with containing
operational noise from emergency generator use.
Developer
Transportation
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1 Conditions
• Install a dedicated eastbound right-turn lane at
85th Street & North Access
• Install a northbound left turn lane at Edmonson
Avenue & 85th Street
• Install side street stop control at site access
points (one approach lane is acceptable for each)
Developer
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 115
Resource Area Mitigation Responsible Party
• Install pedestrian pathways along all arterial and
collector roadways impacted by the project (85th
Street, Fallon Avenue, and Edmonson Avenue). As
parcels begin to develop on the AUAR area, install
sidewalk and trail connections to connect to
existing pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure
Construction Conditions (2030) Scenario 1
• Install an eastbound right turn lane at 85th Street
& North Access
• Install northbound left and southbound right turn
lanes at Edmonson Avenue & East Access
• Install a northbound right turn lane at Edmonson
Avenue & 85th Street
• Install side street stop control at site access
points (one approach lane is acceptable for each)
Developer
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2 Conditions
• Install dedicated right and left-turn lanes at 85th
Street & North Access
• Install dedicated right and left-turn lanes at
Edmonson Avenue & East Access
• Install northbound left- and right-turn lanes at
Edmonson Avenue & 85th Street
• Install Side Street Stop control at all site access
points (single-lane approaches are acceptable)
• Install pedestrian pathways along all arterial and
collector roadways impacted by the project (85th
Street, Fallon Avenue, and Edmonson Avenue). As
parcels begin to develop on the AUAR area, install
sidewalk and trail connections to connect to
existing pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure
• Install a single-lane roundabout at School
Boulevard & Fallon Avenue
Developer (to be
determined at a
later date for the
roundabout)
Design Year (2045) No-Build Conditions
• Install a southbound left turn lane at MN 25 &
Future Roadway (proposed collector) and install a
side street stop control at the intersection.
Developer
Design Year (2045) Scenario 1 Conditions
• All modifications from Opening Year (2030)
Scenario 1 Condition
• Install a southbound left turn lane at MN 25 &
Future Roadway (proposed collector) and install a
side street stop control at the intersection.
Developer
Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 Conditions Developer (to be
determined at a
Monticello Industrial AUAR
January 2026 116
Resource Area Mitigation Responsible Party
• All modifications from Opening Year (2030)
Scenario 2 Conditions
• Install a traffic signal or roundabout at MN 25 &
Future Roadway (proposed minor collector).
Install a northbound right-turn lane at this
intersection.
o Alternatively, the intersection could be
installed as a right-in/right-out or a three-
quarter access intersection to minimize
side street delays.
• Install a southbound right turn lane at Edmonson
Avenue & 85th Street NE
• Install northbound and southbound left turn
lanes at CSAH 37 & Edmonson Avenue and
monitor the intersection for further mitigation
needs.
• Install a northbound bypass lane for right turns at
MN 25 & CSAH 37.
later date for the
roundabout)
Scenarios 1 and 2: Connections to external pathway
and/or sidewalk systems will be required for both
scenarios, to be constructed along all directly adjacent
roadways. For Scenario 2, sidewalks are required along all
internal public streets. These improvements would be
provided by the developer(s). Any reconstruction of
public roadways necessary for site construction purposes
will also be provided by the developer(s).
Developer
Appendix A:
Wetland
Notice of
Decisions
(NODs)
BWSR NOD Form – November 12, 2019 1
Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act
Notice of Decision
Local Government Unit: Wright SWCD County: Wright
Applicant Name: Frattalone Development Company Applicant
Representative: Keller Leet-Otley
Project Name: Frattalone Development Wetland Delineation LGU
Project No. (if any):
Date Complete Application Received by LGU: 9-10-24
Date of LGU Decision: 10-30-24
Date this Notice was Sent: 10-30-24
WCA Decision Type - check all that apply
☒ Wetland Boundary/Type ☐ Sequencing ☐ Replacement Plan ☐ Bank Plan (not credit purchase)
☐ No-Loss (8420.0415) ☐ Exemption (8420.0420)
Part: ☐ A ☐ B ☐ C ☐ D ☐ E ☐ F ☐ G ☐ H Subpart: ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ 6 ☐ 7 ☐ 8 ☐ 9
Replacement Plan Impacts (replacement plan decisions only)
Total WCA Wetland Impact Area:
Wetland Replacement Type: ☐ Project Specific Credits:
☐ Bank Credits:
Bank Account Number(s):
Technical Evaluation Panel Findings and Recommendations (attach if any)
☒ Approve ☐ Approve w/Conditions ☐ Deny ☐ No TEP Recommendation
LGU Decision ☐ Approved with Conditions (specify below)1 ☒ Approved1 ☐ Denied
List Conditions:
Decision-Maker for this Application: ☒ Staff ☐ Governing Board/Council ☐ Other:
Decision is valid for: ☒ 5 years (default) ☐ Other (specify):
1 Wetland Replacement Plan approval is not valid until BWSR confirms the withdrawal of any required wetland bank credits. For project-
specific replacement a financial assurance per MN Rule 8420.0522, Subp. 9 and evidence that all required forms have been recorded on
the title of the property on which the replacement wetland is located must be provided to the LGU for the approval to be valid.
LGU Findings – Attach document(s) and/or insert narrative providing the basis for the LGU decision1.
☐ Attachment(s) (specify):
☒ Summary: The LGU and TEP conducted a site visit on 9-19-24 to review the wetland boundaries as
described within the application and flagged on-site. The LGU and TEP recommended that the applicant
review additional aerial photos to verify the boundary of “Wetland 3” and “Wetland 2” due to the lack of crop
stress observed during a year of abnormally high precipitation. The LGU and TEP also requested additional
review of a possible wetland area located just northwest of “SP-19” to confirm the stockpiling of brush in this
area didn’t occur in a wetland. The applicant provided an addendum including new boundaries for “Wetland
BWSR NOD Form – November 12, 2019 2
3” and “Wetland 2” as well as supporting information confirming the area of brush stockpiling didn’t occur in a
historic wetland area. The LGU and TEP concur with the revised wetland boundary as shown on the attached
“Delineated Resources Map”.
1 Findings must consider any TEP recommendations.
Attached Project Documents
☒ Site Location Map ☒ Project Plan(s)/Descriptions/Reports (specify): Delineated Resources Map
Appeals of LGU Decisions
If you wish to appeal this decision, you must provide a written request within 30 calendar days of the date you
received the notice. All appeals must be submitted to the Board of Water and Soil Resources Executive Director
along with a check payable to BWSR for $500 unless the LGU has adopted a local appeal process as identified
below. The check must be sent by mail and the written request to appeal can be submitted by mail or e-mail.
The appeal should include a copy of this notice, name and contact information of appellant(s) and their
representatives (if applicable), a statement clarifying the intent to appeal and supporting information as to why
the decision is in error. Send to:
Appeals & Regulatory Compliance Coordinator
Minnesota Board of Water & Soils Resources
520 Lafayette Road North
St. Paul, MN 55155
travis.germundson@state.mn.us
Does the LGU have a local appeal process applicable to this decision?
☐ Yes1 ☒ No
1If yes, all appeals must first be considered via the local appeals process.
Local Appeals Submittal Requirements (LGU must describe how to appeal, submittal requirements, fees, etc. as applicable)
Notice Distribution (include name)
Required on all notices:
☒ SWCD & LGU TEP Member: Andrew Grean – andrew.grean@usda.gov ☒ BWSR TEP Member: Cade Steffenson
– cade.steffenson@state.mn.us
☒ Wright County Delegated TEP Member: Jeremy Carlson - jeremy.carlson@co.wright.mn.us
☒ DNR Representative: James Bedell – james.bedell@state.mn.us ☐ Watershed District or Watershed Mgmt. Org.:
☒ Applicant: Frattalone Development Company, nickf@frattaloneco.com ☒ Agent/Consultant:
Keller Leet-Otley, keller.leet-otley@kimley-horn.com
Optional or As Applicable:
☒ Corps of Engineers: usace_requests_mn_usace.army.mil ☐ BWSR Wetland Mitigation Coordinator (required for bank plan applications only):
☒ Members of the Public (notice only): Frank Svoboda - fjsvoboda@gmail.co, ☒ Other: Scott Glup, USFWS –
scott_glup@fws.gov
Jeremy Donabauer, jeremydonabauer@hotmail.com
BWSR NOD Form – November 12, 2019 3
Signature: Date: 10-30-24
This notice and accompanying application materials may be sent electronically or by mail. The LGU may opt to send a
summary of the application to members of the public upon request per 8420.0255, Subp. 3.
CountyRoad75
NE
Birch Lake
BlackLake
A
etna
A
v
e
N
E
1 2 0 th St NE
12 7 t h St NE
C
ounty Road 39 NE
90th St NE
Twin
Lakes
Cedar
Lake
Black Lake
80th St N E
B
r
a
d
d
o
c
k
Ave
NE
5 0 t h S t N E
6 0 t h S t NE
C o u n t y R o a d 3 7 N E
3 5 t h S t N E
Highway25 N
Missis
s
i
p
p
i
R
iver
Cedar
St
C h e l s e a R d
D u n d a s R d
C
h
elseaRdW
90th St N E F
a
ll
on
A
v
e
N
E
B
r
iarwood
A
v
e
N
E
1
2
7t
h
S
t
N
E
County
Road75
NE
P
a
r
k
B
lv
d
S
E
1 2 0 t h S t NE
C ount y Road 39 NE
Co
u
n
t
y
Ro
a
d
5
0
S
E
Montic ello
C ou ntry Club
M o n t i c e l l o
Paradise
Lake
North Lake
Constance
Lake
Gilchrist Lake
6 0 t h S t N E 6 0 t h S t N E
8 5 t h S t N E
50 t h S t N E
E
i
s
e
le
Ave
NE
Daver
n
A
v
e
N
E
E
d
m
o
n
s
o
n
A
v
e
N
E
Cameron A v e N E
Cahill
A
v
e
N
E
C o unt y R oad 3 7 NE
Hig
h
w
a
y
2
5
N
State Highway25NE
Lake Pulaski Pula ski
R
d
D
a
g
u
e
A
v
e
N
EWhitetail
Run
4 0 t h S t N E
E
d
m
o
n
s
o
n
A
v
e
N
E
Hig h w a y 2 5 N
Big Lake
M i s s i s s i p p i R i v er
10
94
J
a
s
o
n
A
v
e
N
E
E
B
r
o
ad
way
St
R iverview Dr
H
a
r
di
n
g
A
v
e
N
E
9 0 th S t N E
182nd Ave NW
Co
u
n
t
y
Ro
a
d
43
N
WE
a
g
le
L
a
keRd
S
200t
h
S
t
181st Ave
County Road 3 9 NE
H i g h w a y 2 5
U S H i g h w a y 1 0 N WBigLake
Pelican Lake
J
a
s
o
n
A
v
e
N
E
Ibarr
a
A
v
e
N
E
72 n d S t N E
F
e
n
n
ing
A
ve
NE
8 0 t h S t N E
C
o
u
n
t
y
R
o
a
d
3
7
N
E
School
Lake
3 0 t h S t N E
35th S t N E
¯0 10.5
Miles
Figure 1. Project Location
Frattalone Development Company
Monticello, MN
Legend
Study Area
Wetland 1
0.33 ac
Wetland 2
4.44 ac
Wetland 3
2.19 ac
Wetland 4
22.26 ac
Wetland 5
0.75 ac
Wetland 6
0.60 acSP-7
SP-6
SP-5
SP-4
SP-3
SP-2
SP-1
SP-18
SP-16
SP-19
SP-17
SP-14
SP-9
SP-8
SP-12
SP-13
SP-15
SP-10
SP-11
¯0 500250US Feet
Figure 3. Delineated Resources Map
Frattalone Development Company
Monticello, MN
Legend
Study Area
Sample Points
Delineated Wetland Boundaries
HGM Class
Depression
Lacustrine Fringe
Aerial Imagery Courtesy of NearMap
BWSR NOD Form –September 3, 2024 1
Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act
Notice of Decision
Local Government Unit: Wright SWCD County: Wright
Applicant Name: Pamela Gregorski Applicant Representative: Ashley
Payne, Kilmey-Horn
Project Name: Project Groundhog Wetland Boundary/Type LGU
Project No. (if any):
Date Complete Application Received by LGU: 6-20-25
Date of LGU Decision: 8-18-25
Date this Notice was sent: 8-18-25
WCA Decision Type - check all that apply
☒ Wetland Boundary/Type ☐ Sequencing ☐ Replacement Plan ☐ Bank Plan (not credit purchase)
☐ Exemption ☐ No-Loss (8420.0415)
MN Rules 8420.0420 Part: ☐ A ☐ B ☐ C ☐ D ☐ E ☐ F ☐ G ☐ H
Subpart: ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ 7 ☐ 9
MN Statutes 103G.2241
Subdivision: : ☐ 1 ☐ 2 ☐ 6 ☐ 9
Replacement Plan Impacts (replacement plan decisions only)
Total WCA Wetland Impact Area:
Wetland Replacement Type: ☐ Project Specific Credits - Number of Credits:
☐ Bank Credits – Number of Credits:
Bank Account Number(s):
Technical Evaluation Panel Findings and Recommendations (attach if any)
☒ Approve ☐ Approve w/Conditions ☐ Deny ☐ No TEP Recommendation
LGU Decision ☐ Approved with Conditions (specify below)1 ☒ Approved1 ☐ Denied
List Conditions:
Decision-Maker for this Application: ☒ Staff ☐ Governing Board/Council ☐ Other:
Decision is valid for: ☒ 5 years (default) ☐ Other (specify):
1 Wetland Replacement Plan approval is not valid until BWSR confirms the withdrawal of any required wetland bank credits. For project-
specific replacement a financial assurance per MN Rule 8420.0522, Subp. 9 and evidence that all required forms have been recorded on
the title of the property on which the replacement wetland is located must be provided to the LGU for the approval to be valid.
LGU Findings – Attach document(s) and/or insert narrative providing the basis for the LGU decision1. ☐ Attachment(s) (specify):
☒ Summary: The LGU conducted a site review with the applicant’s representatives on 7-15-25. During the
site review “Wetland 2” (0.99 acre Fresh Wet Meadow) was observed to lack hydrophytic vegetation and
hydrology indicators. Based on the observations made during the LGU site review, the applicant’s
representatives provided a revised application with additional documentation supporting the fact that
BWSR NOD Form –September 3, 2024 2
“Wetland 2” does not meet the required criteria for being a wetland. Members of the TEP conducted another
site visit on 7-31-25 and concur with this conclusion. The final wetland boundary figure is included as an
attachment to this decision.
1 Findings must consider any TEP recommendations.
Attached Project Documents
☐ Site Location Map ☒ Project Plan(s)/Descriptions/Reports (specify): Final Wetland Boundary Figure
Appeals of LGU Decisions
If you wish to appeal this decision, you must provide a written request within 30 calendar days of the date you
received the notice. All appeals must be submitted to the Board of Water and Soil Resources Executive Director
along with a check payable to BWSR for $500 unless the LGU has adopted a local appeal process as identified
below. The check must be sent by mail and the written request to appeal can be submitted by mail or e-mail.
The appeal should include a copy of this notice, name and contact information of appellant(s) and their
representatives (if applicable), a statement clarifying the intent to appeal and supporting information as to why
the decision is in error. Send to:
Appeals & Regulatory Compliance Coordinator
Minnesota Board of Water & Soils Resources
520 Lafayette Road North
St. Paul, MN 55155
travis.germundson@state.mn.us
Does the LGU have a local appeal process applicable to this decision?
☐ Yes1 ☒ No
1If yes, all appeals must first be considered via the local appeals process.
Local Appeals Submittal Requirements (LGU must describe how to appeal, submittal requirements, fees, etc. as applicable)
Notice Distribution (include name)
Required on all notices:
☒ SWCD and LGU TEP Member: Andrew Grean, andrew.grean@usda.gov ☒ BWSR TEP
Member: Cade Steffenson, cade.steffenson@state.mn.us
☒ TEP Member (if different than LGU contact): Jeremy Carlson, Jeremy.carlson@co.wright.mn.us
☐ DNR Representative: James Bedell, james.bedell@state.mn.us ☐ Watershed District or Watershed Mgmt. Org.:
☒ Applicant: Pamela Gregorski, pamela.gregorski@cscglobal.com ☒
Agent/Consultant: Ashley Payne, Ashley.payne@kimley-horn.com
Optional or As Applicable:
☒ Corps of Engineers: usace_requests_mn@usace.army.mil ☐ BWSR Wetland Mitigation Coordinator (required for bank plan applications only):
☒ Members of the Public (notice only): Jeremy Donabauer, jeremydonabauer@hotmail.com
Frank Svoboda, fjsvoboda@gmail.com
BWSR NOD Form –September 3, 2024 3
Todd_Boonstra@fws.gov ☐ Other:
Signature: Date: 8-18-25
This notice and accompanying application materials may be sent electronically or by mail. The LGU may opt to send a
summary of the application to members of the public upon request per 8420.0255, Subp. 3.
1L
Legend c::::J Study Area
'P .. ,; "'
'P < .. z
C' m
I NE
(") 0 C: � '<
;u 0 "' C. "' 0
VJ m
......
z a, > <(
0"nty Road 39 NE Cou nty Road 39 NE ...... ......
C: "'
� a, :;;
Birch Lake
90th St NE
Twin
Lakes
Black Lake
60th St NE
us (") 0 e C: � '<
;u 0 "' C. ;;;
z 50th St NE
35th St NE
w z a, > <( 'C 0 f ... ,! d)
North Lake
Cedar
Lake
w z a, > <( "" " 0 'C 'C "'
60th St NE
ab on stance
Lake
w z a, > <(
h f
:c 10' ::r :E ., -< "' u, z I
Lake Pulaski
Kimley >>> Horn 0
85th St NE
County Road 37 NE
Paradise
Lake
0 ., " "' ;
Mo nticel lo '- ....._
Dundas Rd
rn C. 3 0 :, "' 0 :, � ..
w ;z a, ::,. 'l' .! a, ,!!? w
.,, "'
0 ::,
► < ..
z m
► < .. 60th St NE
-;:. rn
z Gilchrist Lake m
50th St NE
0.5
w z
40th St NE
Miles N ;;;
:5 0 0 "'
w z a, > <(
......
c, 80th St NE C: C: C: " I>-
35th St NE
.,/
�sitssiPfJi
/ Cou
72nd S
Pelican Lake
Figure 1. Project Location
Township of Monticello, Wright County
Bergram LLC
Appendix B:
StreamStats Report
StreamStats Report
Offsite drainage area does not actually appear to flow onto the site based on public Lidar. No visible culverts exist at the
site boundary that would convey flows. The roadway elevation at the site boundar y is higher than adjacent overflows.
Flow would be captured in multiple different landlocked basins west of MN 25.
Collapse All
Basin Characteristics
P a ra m e t e r
C o d e P a r a m e t e r D e s c r i p t i o n Va l u e U n i t
C S L 1 0 _8 5 C h a n g e i n e l e v a t i o n d i v i d e d b y l e n g t h b e t w e e n p o i n t s 1 0 a n d 8 5 p e r c e n t o f d i s t a n c e
a l o n g m a i n c h a n n e l t o b a s i n d i v i d e - m a i n c h a n n e l m e t h o d n o t k n o w n
8 .0 9 f e e t p e r m i
D R N A R E A A r e a t h a t d ra i n s t o a p o i n t o n a s t r e a m 4 .3 5 s q u a r e
m i l e s
L A K E A R E A P e r c e n t a g e o f L a k e s a n d P o n d s 0 .7 7 p e r c e n t
L AT _O U T L a t i t u d e o f B a s i n O u t l e t 4 5 .2 6 1 9 1 5 d e g r e e s
P F L AT L O W F l a t l a n d s l o w e r t h a n m e d i a n e l e v a t i o n f r o m W o l o c k 2 0 0 3 u n p u b l i s h e d d a t a 2 2 p e r c e n t
P M P E P r e c i p i t a t i o n m i n u s p o t e n t i a l e v a p o r a t i o n f r o m W o l o c k 2 0 0 3 u n p u b l i s h e d d a t a 8 1 .9 m i l l i m e t e r s
General Disclaimers
T h i s w a ter s h e d h a s b e e n e d i t e d , c o mp u t e d f l o w s a n d b a si n c ha ra c t e r i s t i c s m a y n o t a p p l y. For m o r e i n f o r m a t i o n , s u b mi t a s u p p o r t re q u e s t f r o m th e
'H e l p ' b u t ton i n t h e u pp e r -ri g h t o f t he s c re e n , a t t a c h a p df o f t h i s rep or t a n d req u e s t as s i s ta n ce f r o m y o u r l o c a l S t r e am S t a t s r e g i o n a l r e p r e se n t a t i v e .
R e g i o n I D :M N
W o r k s p a c e I D :M N 2 0 2 5 1 0 1 6 1 8 2 0 3 1 2 2 0 0 0 0
C l i c k e d P o i n t (L a t i t u d e , L o n g i t u d e ):4 5 .2 6 1 9 0 , -9 3 .8 1 5 6 2
T i m e :2 0 2 5 -1 0 -1 6 1 3 :2 0 :5 1 -0 5 0 0
10/16/25, 1:26 PM StreamStats
https://streamstats.usgs.gov/ss/1/3
Peak-Flow Statistics
Peak-Flow Statistics Parameters [Minnesota Peakflow D 2023 5079]
P a ra m e t e r C o d e P a r a m e t e r N a m e V a l u e U n i t s M i n L i m i t M a x L i m i t
C S L 1 0 _8 5 S t r e a m S l o p e 1 0 a n d 8 5 M e t h o d 8 .0 9 f e e t p e r m i 1 .4 9 3 4 6 8 4 1 1 7 5 .1 7 0 0 7 5 0 5
D R N A R E A D r a i n a g e A r e a 4 .3 5 s q u a r e m i l e s 0 .1 4 7 0 8 0 6 4 6 1 8 7 0 .0 6 7 1 1 5
L A K E A R E A P e r c e n t L a k e s a n d P o n d s 0 .7 7 p e r c e n t 0 1 3 .4 6 0 0 2 0 4 6
L AT _O U T L a t i t u d e o f B a s i n O u t l e t 4 5 .2 6 1 9 1 5 d e c i m a l d e g r e e s 4 3 .5 1 4 4 1 1 1 5 4 6 .0 9 4 4 0 4 1
Peak-Flow Statistics Flow Report [Minnesota Peakflow D 2023 5079]
P I L : L o w e r 9 0 % P r e d i c t i o n I n t e r v a l , P I U : U p p e r 9 0 % P r e d i c t i o n I n t e r v a l , A S E p : A v e ra g e S t a n d a r d E r r o r o f P r e d i c t i o n , S E :
S t a n d a r d E r r o r, P C : P e r c e n t C o r r e c t , R M S E : R o o t M e a n S q u a r e d E r r o r, P s e u d o R ^2 : P s e u d o R S q u a r e d (o t h e r -- s e e r e p o r t )
S t a t i s t i c V a l u e U n i t P I L P I U S E A S E p
6 6 .7 -p e r c e n t A E P f l o o d 3 3 .5 f t ^3 /s 1 4 .5 7 7 .3 5 1 .7 5 3 .8
5 0 -p e r c e n t A E P f l o o d 4 7 .8 f t ^3 /s 2 2 .6 1 0 1 4 5 .7 4 7 .6
2 0 -p e r c e n t A E P f l o o d 9 5 f t ^3 /s 4 8 .9 1 8 5 4 0 .3 4 2 .2
1 0 -p e r c e n t A E P f l o o d 1 3 4 f t ^3 /s 6 7 .3 2 6 7 4 1 .2 4 3 .2
4 -p e r c e n t A E P f l o o d 1 9 2 f t ^3 /s 9 3 .1 3 9 6 4 3 .8 4 6 .1
2 -p e r c e n t A E P f l o o d 2 4 0 f t ^3 /s 1 1 1 5 1 7 4 6 .4 4 8 .9
1 -p e r c e n t A E P f l o o d 2 9 2 f t ^3 /s 1 2 9 6 6 1 4 9 .8 5 2 .5
0 .2 -p e r c e n t A E P f l o o d 4 2 8 f t ^3 /s 1 6 8 1 0 9 0 5 8 .1 6 1 .4
Peak-Flow Statistics Citations
C h r i s t o p h e r A . S a n o c k i a n d S a r a B . L e v i n 2 0 2 3 , Te c h n i q u e s f o r E s t i m a t i n g t h e M a g n i t u d e a n d F r e q u e n c y o f P e a k F l o w s o n
S m a l l S t r e a m s i n M i n n e s o t a , e x c l u d i n g t h e R a i n y R i v e r B a s i n , B a s e d o n D a t a t h r o u g h W a t e r Y e a r 2 0 1 9 , U .S . G e o l o g i c a l S u r v e y
S c i e n t i f i c I n v e s t i g a t i o n s R e p o r t 2 0 2 3 -5 0 7 9 , 1 5 p . (h t t p s ://d o i .o r g /1 0 .3 1 3 3 /s i r 2 0 2 3 5 0 7 9 )
Flow-Duration Statistics
Flow-Duration Statistics Parameters [Flow duration Region D 2015 5170]
P a ra m e t e r C o d e P a r a m e t e r N a m e V a l u e U n i t s M i n L i m i t M a x L i m i t
D R N A R E A D r a i n a g e A r e a 4 .3 5 s q u a r e m i l e s 7 .6 5 2 6 4 0
P F L AT L O W F l a t _L a n d s _B e l o w _M e d i a n _E l e v a t i o n 2 2 p e r c e n t 4 .8 8 5 6 .9
P M P E P r e c i p _M i n u s _P o t e n t i a l _E v a p 8 1 .9 m i l l i m e t e r s -1 3 2 2 0 3
Flow-Duration Statistics Disclaimers [Flow duration Region D 2015 5170]
O n e o r m o r e o f t h e p a r a m e t e r s i s o u t s i d e th e s u g g e st e d ra n g e . Es t i ma te s w e re e x t ra po l at e d w i t h u n k n o w n e r r o r s .
Flow-Duration Statistics Flow Report [Flow duration Region D 2015 5170]
S t a t i s t i c V a l u e U n i t
0 .0 1 P e r c e n t D u r a t i o n 2 1 8 f t ^3 /s
0 .1 P e r c e n t D u r a t i o n 1 0 0 f t ^3 /s
10/16/25, 1:26 PM StreamStats
https://streamstats.usgs.gov/ss/2/3
S t a t i s t i c V a l u e U n i t
2 P e r c e n t D u ra t i o n 1 7 .9 f t ^3 /s
5 P e r c e n t D u ra t i o n 8 .1 7 f t ^3 /s
1 0 P e r c e n t D u ra t i o n 3 .9 5 f t ^3 /s
2 5 P e r c e n t D u ra t i o n 1 .1 4 f t ^3 /s
5 0 P e r c e n t D u ra t i o n 0 .2 1 9 f t ^3 /s
7 5 P e r c e n t D u ra t i o n 0 .0 2 7 1 f t ^3 /s
9 0 P e r c e n t D u ra t i o n 0 .0 1 2 6 f t ^3 /s
9 5 P e r c e n t D u ra t i o n 0 .0 1 3 8 f t ^3 /s
9 9 P e r c e n t D u ra t i o n 0 .0 0 6 0 4 f t ^3 /s
9 9 .9 P e r c e n t D u r a t i o n 0 .0 0 0 3 0 4 f t ^3 /s
9 9 .9 9 P e r c e n t D u r a t i o n 0 .0 0 0 3 3 5 f t ^3 /s
Flow-Duration Statistics Citations
Z i e g e w e i d , J .R ., L o r e n z , D.L ., S a n o c k i , C .A ., a n d C z u b a , C .R .,2 0 1 5 , M e t h o d s f o r e s t i m a t i n g f l o w -d u r a t i o n c u r v e a n d l o w -f l o w
f r e q u e n c y s t a t i s t i c s f o r u n g a g e d l o c a t i o n s o n s m a l l s t r e a m s i n M i n n e s o t a : U .S . G e o l o g i c a l S u r v e y S c i e n t i f i c I n v e s t i g a t i o n s
R e p o r t 2 0 1 5 –5 1 7 0 , 2 3 p . (h t t p ://d x .d o i .o r g /1 0 .3 1 3 3 /s i r 2 0 1 5 5 1 7 0 )
USGS Data Disclaimer: Unless otherwise stated, all data, metadata and related materials are considered to satisfy the quality standards relative to the purpose for
which the data were collected. Although these data and associated metadata have been reviewed for accuracy and completeness and approved for release by the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), no warranty expressed or implied is made regarding the display or utility of the data for other purposes, nor on all computer
systems, nor shall the act of distribution constitute any such warranty.
USGS Software Disclaimer: This software has been approved for release by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Although the software has been subjected to
rigorous review, the USGS reserves the right to update the software as needed pursuant to further analysis and review. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made
by the USGS or the U.S. Government as to the functionality of the software and related material nor shall the fact of release constitute any such warranty.
Furthermore, the software is released on condition that neither the USGS nor the U.S. Government shall be held liable for any damages resulting from its
authorized or unauthorized use.
USGS Product Names Disclaimer: Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S.
Government.
Application Version: 4.29.3
StreamStats Services Version: 1.2.22
NSS Services Version: 2.2.1
10/16/25, 1:26 PM StreamStats
https://streamstats.usgs.gov/ss/3/3
Appendix C: Agency
Correspondence
07/16/2025 18:38:06 UTC
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office
3815 American Blvd East
Bloomington, MN 55425-1659
Phone: (952) 858-0793
In Reply Refer To:
Project Code: 2025-0122601
Project Name: Monticello Industrial AUAR
Subject:List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project
location or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:
This response has been generated by the Information, Planning, and Conservation (IPaC) system to provide
information on natural resources that could be affected by your project. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) provides this response under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C.
1531-1543), the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d), the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(16 U.S.C. 703-712), and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.).
Threatened and Endangered Species
The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as
proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and
may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirement for obtaining a Technical
Assistance Letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act
(Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed
habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations
implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. The
Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the IPaC website at regular intervals during
project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be
requested through the IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.
Consultation Technical Assistance
Please refer to refer to our Section 7 website for guidance and technical assistance, including step-by-step
instructions for making effects determinations for each species that might be present and for specific guidance
on the following types of projects: projects in developed areas, HUD, CDBG, EDA, USDA Rural
Development projects, pipelines, buried utilities, telecommunications, and requests for a Conditional Letter of
Map Revision (CLOMR) from FEMA.
Project code: 2025-0122601 07/16/2025 18:38:06 UTC
2 of 14
1.
2.
We recommend running the project (if it qualifies) through our Minnesota-Wisconsin Federal Endangered
Species Determination Key (Minnesota-Wisconsin ("D-key")). A demonstration video showing how-to
access and use the determination key is available. Please note that the Minnesota-Wisconsin D-key is the third
option of 3 available d-keys. D-keys are tools to help Federal agencies and other project proponents determine
if their proposed action has the potential to adversely affect federally listed species and designated critical
habitat. The Minnesota-Wisconsin D-key includes a structured set of questions that assists a project proponent
in determining whether a proposed project qualifies for a certain predetermined consultation outcome for all
federally listed species found in Minnesota and Wisconsin (except for the northern long-eared bat- see below),
which includes determinations of “no effect” or “may affect, not likely to adversely affect." In each case, the
Service has compiled and analyzed the best available information on the species’ biology and the impacts of
certain activities to support these determinations.
If your completed d-key output letter shows a "No Effect" (NE) determination for all listed species, print your
IPaC output letter for your files to document your compliance with the Endangered Species Act.
For Federal projects with a “Not Likely to Adversely Affect” (NLAA) determination, our concurrence becomes
valid if you do not hear otherwise from us after a 30-day review period, as indicated in your letter.
If your d-key output letter indicates additional coordination with the Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services
Field Office is necessary (i.e., you get a “May Affect” determination), you will be provided additional
guidance on contacting the Service to continue ESA coordination outside of the key; ESA compliance cannot
be concluded using the key for “May Affect” determinations unless otherwise indicated in your output letter.
Note: Once you obtain your official species list, you are not required to continue in IPaC with d-keys,
although in most cases these tools should expedite your review. If you choose to make an effects
determination on your own, you may do so. If the project is a Federal Action, you may want to review our
section 7 step-by-step instructions before making your determinations.
Using the IPaC Official Species List to Make No Effect and May Affect Determinations for Listed
Species
If IPaC returns a result of “There are no listed species found within the vicinity of the project,” then
project proponents can conclude the proposed activities will have no effect on any federally listed
species under Service jurisdiction. Concurrence from the Service is not required for no
effect determinations. No further consultation or coordination is required. Attach this letter to the dated
IPaC species list report for your records.
If IPaC returns one or more federally listed, proposed, or candidate species as potentially present in the
action area of the proposed project – other than bats (see below) – then project proponents must
determine if proposed activities will have no effect on or may affect those species. For assistance in
determining if suitable habitat for listed, candidate, or proposed species occurs within your project area
or if species may be affected by project activities, you can obtain Life History Information for Listed
and Candidate Species on our office website. If no impacts will occur to a species on the IPaC species
list (e.g., there is no habitat present in the project area), the appropriate determination is no effect. No
further consultation or coordination is required. Attach this letter to the dated IPaC species list report for
your records.
Project code: 2025-0122601 07/16/2025 18:38:06 UTC
3 of 14
3.
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Should you determine that project activities may affect any federally listed, please contact our office
for further coordination. Letters with requests for consultation or correspondence about your project
should include the Consultation Tracking Number in the header. Electronic submission is preferred.
Northern Long-Eared Bats
Northern long-eared bats occur throughout Minnesota and Wisconsin and the information below may help in
determining if your project may affect these species.
Suitable summer habitat for northern long-eared bats consists of a wide variety of forested/wooded habitats
where they roost, forage, and travel and may also include some adjacent and interspersed non-forested habitats
such as emergent wetlands and adjacent edges of agricultural fields, old fields and pastures. This includes
forests and woodlots containing potential roosts (i.e., live trees and/or snags ≥3 inches dbh for northern long-
eared bat that have exfoliating bark, cracks, crevices, and/or hollows), as well as linear features such as
fencerows, riparian forests, and other wooded corridors. These wooded areas may be dense or loose aggregates
of trees with variable amounts of canopy closure. Individual trees may be considered suitable habitat when
they exhibit the characteristics of a potential roost tree and are located within 1,000 feet (305 meters) of
forested/wooded habitat. Northern long-eared bats have also been observed roosting in human-made structures,
such as buildings, barns, bridges, and bat houses; therefore, these structures should also be considered potential
summer habitat and evaluated for use by bats. If your project will impact caves or mines or will involve
clearing forest or woodland habitat containing suitable roosting habitat, northern long-eared bats could be
affected. For bat activity dates, please review Appendix L in the Range-wide Indiana Bat and Northern Long-
Eared Bat Survey Guidelines.
Examples of unsuitable habitat include:
Individual trees that are greater than 1,000 feet from forested or wooded areas,
Trees found in highly developed urban areas (e.g., street trees, downtown areas),
A pure stand of less than 3-inch dbh trees that are not mixed with larger trees, and
A monoculture stand of shrubby vegetation with no potential roost trees.
If IPaC returns a result that northern long-eared bats are potentially present in the action area of the proposed
project, project proponents can conclude the proposed activities may affect this species IF one or more of the
following activities are proposed:
Clearing or disturbing suitable roosting habitat, as defined above, at any time of year,
Any activity in or near the entrance to a cave or mine,
Mining, deep excavation, or underground work within 0.25 miles of a cave or mine,
Construction of one or more wind turbines, or
Demolition or reconstruction of human-made structures that are known to be used by bats based on
observations of roosting bats, bats emerging at dusk, or guano deposits or stains.
If none of the above activities are proposed, project proponents can conclude the proposed activities will
have no effect on the northern long-eared bat. Concurrence from the Service is not required for No
Effect determinations. No further consultation or coordination is required. Attach this letter to the dated IPaC
Project code: 2025-0122601 07/16/2025 18:38:06 UTC
4 of 14
species list report for your records.
If any of the above activities are proposed, and the northern long-eared bat appears on the user’s species list,
the federal project user will be directed to either the northern long-eared bat and tricolored bat range-wide D-
key or the Federal Highways Administration, Federal Railways Administration, and Federal Transit
Administration Indiana bat/Northern long-eared bat D-key, depending on the type of project and federal
agency involvement. Similar to the Minnesota-Wisconsin D-key, these d-keys helps to determine if prohibited
take might occur and, if not, will generate an automated verification letter. Additional information about
available tools can be found on the Service’s northern long-eared bat website.
Whooping Crane
Whooping crane is designated as a non-essential experimental population in Wisconsin and consultation under
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act is only required if project activities will occur within a National
Wildlife Refuge or National Park. If project activities are proposed on lands outside of a National Wildlife
Refuge or National Park, then you are not required to consult. For additional information on this designation
and consultation requirements, please review “Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of
Whooping Cranes in the Eastern United States.”
Other Trust Resources and Activities
Bald and Golden Eagles - Although the bald eagle has been removed from the endangered species list, this
species and the golden eagle are protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act. It is the responsibility of the project proponent to survey the area for any migratory bird nests. If there is
an eagle nest on-site while work is on-going, eagles may be disturbed. We recommend avoiding and
minimizing disturbance to eagles whenever practicable. If you cannot avoid eagle disturbance, you may seek a
permit. A nest take permit is always required for removal, relocation, or obstruction of an eagle nest. For
communication and wind energy projects, please refer to additional guidelines below.
Migratory Birds - The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the taking, killing, possession,
transportation, and importation of migratory birds, their eggs, parts, and nests, except when specifically
authorized by the Service. The Service has the responsibility under the MBTA to proactively prevent the
mortality of migratory birds whenever possible and we encourage implementation of recommendations that
minimize potential impacts to migratory birds. Such measures include clearing forested habitat outside the
nesting season (generally March 1 to August 31) or conducting nest surveys prior to clearing to avoid injury to
eggs or nestlings.
Communication Towers - Construction of new communications towers (including radio, television, cellular,
and microwave) creates a potentially significant impact on migratory birds, especially some 350 species of
night-migrating birds. However, the Service has developed voluntary guidelines for minimizing impacts.
Transmission Lines - Migratory birds, especially large species with long wingspans, heavy bodies, and poor
maneuverability can also collide with power lines. In addition, mortality can occur when birds, particularly
hawks, eagles, kites, falcons, and owls, attempt to perch on uninsulated or unguarded power poles. To
minimize these risks, please refer to guidelines developed by the Avian Power Line Interaction Committee and
the Service. Implementation of these measures is especially important along sections of lines adjacent to
wetlands or other areas that support large numbers of raptors and migratory birds.
Project code: 2025-0122601 07/16/2025 18:38:06 UTC
5 of 14
▪
▪
▪
Wind Energy - To minimize impacts to migratory birds and bats, wind energy projects should follow the
Service’s Wind Energy Guidelines. In addition, please refer to the Service's Eagle Conservation Plan Guidance,
which provides guidance for conserving bald and golden eagles in the course of siting, constructing, and
operating wind energy facilities.
State Department of Natural Resources Coordination
While it is not required for your Federal section 7 consultation, please note that additional state endangered or
threatened species may also have the potential to be impacted. Please contact the Minnesota or Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources for information on state listed species that may be present in your
proposed project area.
Minnesota
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources - Endangered Resources Review Homepage
Email: Review.NHIS@state.mn.us
Wisconsin
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources - Endangered Resources Review Homepage
Email: DNRERReview@wi.gov
We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. Please feel free to contact our office with
questions or for additional information.
Attachment(s):
Official Species List
Bald & Golden Eagles
Migratory Birds
OFFICIAL SPECIES LIST
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the
requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether
any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed
action".
This species list is provided by:
Minnesota-Wisconsin Ecological Services Field Office
3815 American Blvd East
Bloomington, MN 55425-1659
(952) 858-0793
Project code: 2025-0122601 07/16/2025 18:38:06 UTC
6 of 14
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Code:2025-0122601
Project Name:Monticello Industrial AUAR
Project Type:Mixed-Use Construction
Project Description:The AUAR study area encompasses an area totaling approximately 546
acres on 15 parcels in Monticello Township, Wright County, Minnesota.
Monticello Tech, LLC is proposing to develop the study area from
existing farmland to a technology park or light industrial uses.
Project Location:
The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https://
www.google.com/maps/@45.26542395,-93.80850254796702,14z
Counties:Wright County, Minnesota
Project code: 2025-0122601 07/16/2025 18:38:06 UTC
7 of 14
1.
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SPECIES
There is a total of 3 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.
Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include
species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species
list because a project could affect downstream species.
IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA
Fisheries , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the
Department of Commerce.
See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially
within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office
if you have questions.
NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an
office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of
Commerce.
1
Project code: 2025-0122601 07/16/2025 18:38:06 UTC
8 of 14
1.
2.
3.
BIRDS
NAME STATUS
Whooping Crane Grus americana
Population: U.S.A. (AL, AR, CO, FL, GA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KY, LA, MI, MN, MS, MO, NC,
NM, OH, SC, TN, UT, VA, WI, WV, western half of WY)
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/758
Experimental
Population,
Non-
Essential
INSECTS
NAME STATUS
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus
There is proposed critical habitat for this species. Your location does not overlap the critical
habitat.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743
Proposed
Threatened
Western Regal Fritillary Argynnis idalia occidentalis
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/12017
Proposed
Threatened
CRITICAL HABITATS
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S
JURISDICTION.
YOU ARE STILL REQUIRED TO DETERMINE IF YOUR PROJECT(S) MAY HAVE EFFECTS ON ALL
ABOVE LISTED SPECIES.
BALD & GOLDEN EAGLES
Bald and Golden Eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) . Any person or organization who plans or conducts
activities that may result in impacts to Bald or Golden Eagles, or their habitats, should follow
appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate avoidance and minimization
measures, as described in the various links on this page.
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)
There are Bald Eagles and/or Golden Eagles in your project area.
Measures for Proactively Minimizing Eagle Impacts
For information on how to best avoid and minimize disturbance to nesting bald eagles, please
review the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. You may employ the timing and
2
1
Project code: 2025-0122601 07/16/2025 18:38:06 UTC
9 of 14
activity-specific distance recommendations in this document when designing your project/
activity to avoid and minimize eagle impacts. For bald eagle information specific to Alaska,
please refer to Bald Eagle Nesting and Sensitivity to Human Activity.
The FWS does not currently have guidelines for avoiding and minimizing disturbance to nesting
Golden Eagles. For site-specific recommendations regarding nesting Golden Eagles, please
consult with the appropriate Regional Migratory Bird Office or Ecological Services Field Office.
If disturbance or take of eagles cannot be avoided, an incidental take permit may be available to
authorize any take that results from, but is not the purpose of, an otherwise lawful activity. For
assistance making this determination for Bald Eagles, visit the Do I Need A Permit Tool. For
assistance making this determination for golden eagles, please consult with the appropriate
Regional Migratory Bird Office or Ecological Services Field Office.
Ensure Your Eagle List is Accurate and Complete
If your project area is in a poorly surveyed area in IPaC, your list may not be complete and you
may need to rely on other resources to determine what species may be present (e.g. your local
FWS field office, state surveys, your own surveys). Please review the Supplemental Information
on Migratory Birds and Eagles, to help you properly interpret the report for your specified
location, including determining if there is sufficient data to ensure your list is accurate.
For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures
to reduce impacts to bald or golden eagles on your list, see the "Probability of Presence
Summary" below to see when these bald or golden eagles are most likely to be present and
breeding in your project area.
NAME BREEDING SEASON
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention
because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain
types of development or activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626
Breeds Dec 1 to
Aug 31
PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be
present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project
activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read "Supplemental
Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", specifically the FAQ section titled "Proper
Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret
this report.
Probability of Presence ()
Green bars; the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project
overlaps during that week of the year.
Breeding Season ()
Project code: 2025-0122601 07/16/2025 18:38:06 UTC
10 of 14
▪
▪
▪
▪
1.
2.
3.
no data survey effort breeding season probability of presence
Yellow bars; liberal estimate of the timeframe inside which the bird breeds across its entire
range.
Survey Effort ()
Vertical black lines; the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s)
your project area overlaps.
No Data ()
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Bald Eagle
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
Additional information can be found using the following links:
Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management
Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/
collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take-migratory-birds
Nationwide avoidance and minimization measures for birds https://www.fws.gov/sites/
default/files/documents/nationwide-standard-conservation-measures.pdf
Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/
media/supplemental-information-migratory-birds-and-bald-and-golden-eagles-may-occur-
project-action
MIGRATORY BIRDS
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) prohibits the take (including killing, capturing, selling,
trading, and transport) of protected migratory bird species without prior authorization by the
Department of Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service).
The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)
For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures
to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, see the "Probability of Presence Summary"
below to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area.
1
Project code: 2025-0122601 07/16/2025 18:38:06 UTC
11 of 14
NAME
BREEDING
SEASON
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention
because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types
of development or activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626
Breeds Dec 1 to
Aug 31
Canada Warbler Cardellina canadensis
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9643
Breeds May 20
to Aug 10
Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9406
Breeds Mar 15
to Aug 25
Golden-winged Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8745
Breeds May 1 to
Jul 20
Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9679
Breeds
elsewhere
Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9561
Breeds
elsewhere
Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9398
Breeds May 10
to Sep 10
Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions
(BCRs) in the continental USA
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9478
Breeds
elsewhere
Western Grebe aechmophorus occidentalis
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6743
Breeds Jun 1 to
Aug 31
Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9431
Breeds May 10
to Aug 31
Project code: 2025-0122601 07/16/2025 18:38:06 UTC
12 of 14
no data survey effort breeding season probability of presence
PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be
present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project
activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read "Supplemental
Information on Migratory Birds and Eagles", specifically the FAQ section titled "Proper
Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret
this report.
Probability of Presence ()
Green bars; the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project
overlaps during that week of the year.
Breeding Season ()
Yellow bars; liberal estimate of the timeframe inside which the bird breeds across its entire
range.
Survey Effort ()
Vertical black lines; the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s)
your project area overlaps.
No Data ()
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Bald Eagle
Non-BCC
Vulnerable
Canada Warbler
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Chimney Swift
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Golden-winged
Warbler
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Lesser Yellowlegs
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Pectoral Sandpiper
Project code: 2025-0122601 07/16/2025 18:38:06 UTC
13 of 14
▪
▪
▪
▪
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Red-headed
Woodpecker
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Rusty Blackbird
BCC - BCR
Western Grebe
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Wood Thrush
BCC Rangewide
(CON)
Additional information can be found using the following links:
Eagle Management https://www.fws.gov/program/eagle-management
Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds https://www.fws.gov/library/
collections/avoiding-and-minimizing-incidental-take-migratory-birds
Nationwide avoidance and minimization measures for birds
Supplemental Information for Migratory Birds and Eagles in IPaC https://www.fws.gov/
media/supplemental-information-migratory-birds-and-bald-and-golden-eagles-may-occur-
project-action
Project code: 2025-0122601 07/16/2025 18:38:06 UTC
14 of 14
IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION
Agency:Private Entity
Name:Jacob Ackerman
Address:767 N Eustis St
Address Line 2:Suite 100
City:St. Paul
State:MN
Zip:55114
Email jake.ackerman@kimley-horn.com
Phone:6514568135
Monticello Industrial
MCE #: 2024-00577
Page 1 of 5
Formal Natural Heritage Review - Cover Page
See next page for results of review. A draft watermark means the project details
have not been finalized and the results are not official.
Project Name: Monticello Industrial
Project Proposer: Frattalone
Project Type: Development, Commercial/Institutional/Industrial
Project Type Activities: Tree Removal;Wetland impacts (e.g., dewatering, tiling, drainage, discharge,
excavation, fill, runoff, sedimentation, changes in hydrology)
TRS: T121 R25 S22, T121 R25 S23, T121 R25 S26, T121 R25 S27
County(s): Wright
DNR Admin Region(s): Central
Reason Requested: State EAW
Project Description: The project would involve the construction of an industrial development.
Existing Land Uses: Agricultural
Landcover / Habitat Impacted: Cultivated crops, grassland, potential wetland impacts
Waterbodies Affected: There may be potential impacts to wetlands on site.
Groundwater Resources Affected: N/A
Previous Natural Heritage Review: No
Previous Habitat Assessments / Surveys: No
SUMMARY OF AUTOMATED RESULTS
Category Results Response By Category
Project Details Comments Tree Removal - Recommendations
Ecologically Significant Area No Comments No Further Review Required
State-Listed Endangered or
Threatened Species
No Comments No Further Review Required
State-Listed Species of Special
Concern
No Comments No Further Review Required
Federally Listed Species No Records Visit IPaC For Federal Review
7/17/2024 10:25 AM
Monticello Industrial
MCE #: 2024-00577
Page 2 of 5
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Division of Ecological & Water Resources
500 Lafayette Road, Box 25
St. Paul, MN 55155-4025
July 17, 2024
Project ID: MCE #2024-00577
Twin Cities - Environmental (Kimley-Horn)
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
767 Eustis Street, Suite 100
St. Paul, MN 55114
RE: Automated Natural Heritage Review of the proposed Monticello Industrial
See Cover Page for location and project details.
Dear Twin Cities - Environmental (Kimley-Horn),
As requested, the above project has been reviewed for potential effects to rare features. Given the project
details provided on the cover page, I do not believe the proposed project will negatively affect any known
occurrences of rare features. To ensure compliance with federal law, conduct a federal regulatory review
using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) online Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC)
tool.
Project Type and/or Project Type Activity Comments
The Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) tracks bat roost trees and hibernacula plus some
acoustic data, but this information is not exhaustive. Even if there are no bat records listed below, all
of Minnesota’s bats, including the federally endangered northern long-eared bat (Myotis
septentrionalis), can be found throughout Minnesota. During the active season (approximately April-
November) bats roost underneath bark, in cavities, or in crevices of both live and dead trees. Tree
removal can negatively impact bats by destroying roosting habitat, especially during the pup rearing
season when females are forming maternity roosting colonies and the pups cannot yet fly. To
minimize these impacts, the DNR recommends that tree removal be avoided from June 1 through
August 15.
The Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS), a collection of databases that contains information about
Minnesota’s rare natural features, is maintained by the Division of Ecological and Water Resources,
Department of Natural Resources. The NHIS is continually updated as new information becomes available,
and is the most complete source of data on Minnesota's rare or otherwise significant species, native plant
communities, and other natural features. However, the NHIS is not an exhaustive inventory and thus does
not represent all of the occurrences of rare features within the state. Therefore, ecologically significant
features for which we have no records may exist within the project area. If additional information becomes
available regarding rare features in the vicinity of the project, further review may be necessary.
7/17/2024 10:25 AM
Monticello Industrial
MCE #: 2024-00577
Page 3 of 5
For environmental review purposes, the results of this Natural Heritage Review are valid for one year; the
results are only valid for the project location and the project description provided on the cover page. If
project details change or construction has not occurred within one year, please resubmit the project for
review before initiating project activities.
The Natural Heritage Review does not constitute project approval by the Department of Natural Resources.
Instead, it identifies issues regarding known occurrences of rare features and potential impacts to these rare
features. For information on the environmental review process or other natural resource concerns, you may
contact your DNR Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist.
Thank you for consulting us on this matter, and for your interest in preserving Minnesota's rare natural
resources.
Sincerely,
Jim Drake Jim Drake
Natural Heritage Review Specialist
James.F.Drake@state.mn.us
Links:USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) tool
Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) tool
DNR Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist Contact Info
https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/ereview/erp_regioncontacts.html
7/17/2024 10:25 AM
Monticello Industrial
MCE #: 2024-00577
Page 4 of 5
7/17/2024 10:25 AM
Monticello Industrial
MCE #: 2024-00577
Page 5 of 5
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
7/17/2024 10:25 AM
Monticello Industrial AUAR
MCE #: 2025-00610
Page 1 of 4
Formal Natural Heritage Review - Cover Page
See next page for results of review. A draft watermark means the project details
have not been finalized and the results are not official.
Project Name: Monticello Industrial AUAR
Project Proposer: Monticello Tech, LLC
Project Type: Development, Commercial/Institutional/Industrial
Project Type Activities: Wetland impacts (e.g., dewatering, tiling, drainage, discharge, excavation, fill,
runoff, sedimentation, changes in hydrology);Tree Removal;Grading
TRS: T121 R25 S22, T121 R25 S23, T121 R25 S26, T121 R25 S27
County(s): Wright
DNR Admin Region(s): Central
Reason Requested: State EAW
Project Description: The city of Monticello is preparing an AUAR for the Monticello Industrial Development.
The city is proposing two development scenarios. One is for 3,000,000 ...
Existing Land Uses:
Landcover / Habitat Impacted:
Waterbodies Affected:
Groundwater Resources Affected:
Previous Natural Heritage Review: Yes, ERDB#: 2024-00577
Previous Habitat Assessments / Surveys: No
SUMMARY OF AUTOMATED RESULTS
Category Results Response By Category
Project Details Comments Tree Removal - Recommendations
Ecologically Significant Area No Comments No Further Review Required
State-Listed Endangered or
Threatened Species
Needs Further
Review
State-protected Species - Needs Further
Review
State-Listed Species of Special
Concern
No Comments No Further Review Required
Federally Listed Species No Records Visit IPaC For Federal Review
7/16/2025 05:53 PM
Monticello Industrial AUAR
MCE #: 2025-00610
Page 2 of 4
July 16, 2025
Project Name: Monticello Industrial AUAR
Project Proposer: Monticello Tech, LLC
Project Type: Development, Commercial/Institutional/Industrial
Project ID: MCE #2025-00610
AUTOMATED RESULTS: FURTHER REVIEW IS NEEDED
As requested, the above project has undergone an automated review for potential impacts to rare features.
Based on this review, one or more rare features may be impacted by the proposed project and further
review by the Natural Heritage Review Team is needed. You will receive a separate notification email when
the review process is complete and the Natural Heritage Review letter has been posted.
Please refer to the table on the cover page of this report for a summary of potential impacts to rare features.
For additional information or planning purposes, use the Explore Page in Minnesota Conservation Explorer
to view the potentially impacted rare features or to create a Conservation Planning Report for the proposed
project.
If you have additional information to help resolve the potential impacts listed in the summary results, please
attach related project documentation in the Edit Details tab of the Project page. Relevant information
includes, but is not limited to, additional project details, completed habitat assessments, or survey results.
This additional information will be considered during the project review.
7/16/2025 05:53 PM
Monticello Industrial AUAR
MCE #: 2025-00610
Page 3 of 4
7/16/2025 05:53 PM
Monticello Industrial AUAR
MCE #: 2025-00610
Page 4 of 4
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
7/16/2025 05:53 PM
Monticello Industrial AUAR
MCE-2025-00610
Page 1 of 3
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Division of Ecological & Water Resources
500 Lafayette Road, Box 25
St. Paul, MN 55155-4025
August 14, 2025
Twin Cities - Environmental (Kimley-Horn)
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
RE: Natural Heritage Review of the proposed Monticello Industrial AUAR,
T121N R25W Sections 22-23 and 26-27; Wright County
Dear Twin Cities - Environmental (Kimley-Horn),
For all correspondence regarding the Natural Heritage Review of this project please include the project ID MCE-
2025-00610 in the email subject line.
As requested, the Minnesota Natural Heritage Information System has been reviewed to determine if the
proposed project has the potential to impact any rare species or other significant natural features. Based on the
project details provided with the request, the following rare features may be impacted by the proposed project:
State-listed Species
•Blanding’s turtles (Emydoidea blandingii), a state-listed threatened species, have been documented in
the vicinity of the proposed project. Blanding’s turtles use upland areas up to and over a mile distant
from wetlands, waterbodies, and watercourses. Uplands are used for nesting, basking, periods of
dormancy, and traveling between wetlands. Factors believed to contribute to the decline of this species
include collisions with vehicles, wetland drainage and degradation, and the development of upland
habitat. Any added mortality can be detrimental to populations of Blanding’s turtles, as these turtles
have a low reproduction rate that depends upon a high survival rate to maintain population levels.
This project has the potential to impact this rare turtle through direct fatalities and habitat
disturbance/destruction due to activities associated with the proposed project. Minnesota’s Endangered
Species Statute (Minnesota Statutes, section 84.0895) and associated Rules (Minnesota Rules, part
6212.1800 to 6212.2300 and 6134) prohibit the take of threatened or endangered species without a
permit. As such, please contact Review.NHIS@state.mn.us to confirm that the following measures will
be implemented:
o Avoid wetland and aquatic impacts during hibernation season, between September 15 and April
15, if the area is suitable for hibernation.
o Limit erosion and sediment control to wildlife friendly erosion control.
o Check bare ground within construction areas for turtles before the use of heavy equipment or
any ground disturbance.
o The Blanding’s turtle flyer must be given to all contractors working in the area.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
MCE-2025-00610
Page 2 of 3
o Report any sightings using the DNR Plant and Animal Observation Form.
o If turtles are in imminent danger, move them by hand out of harm’s way; otherwise, they are to
be left undisturbed. Directions on how to move turtles safely can be found at Helping Turtles
Across the Road.
If the above measures are not feasible, please contact Review.NHIS@state.mn.us as a project-specific
avoidance plan will likely be needed to demonstrate avoidance.
Additional Blanding’s turtle avoidance measures may include, but are not limited to, the following
recommendations:
o Recommendations from List 1 of the Blanding’s turtle fact sheet. If greater protection for turtles
is desired, implement recommendations from List 2.
For examples of wildlife friendly roads, see “Curb Design and Small Animals” (Ch. 1
Species Protection, P. 24) in the Best Practices for Meeting DNR General Public Waters
Work Permit manual.
o Avoid hydro-mulch products that contain any materials with synthetic (plastic) fiber additives, as
the fibers can re-suspend and flow into waterbodies.
o Nesting occurs in open (grassy or brushy) sandy uplands. Blanding’s turtles have been known to
nest in residential areas, farm fields, and areas of exposed soil/sand/sediment (including soil
stockpiles and gravel pads). To minimize impacts:
Avoid impacts to potential nesting habitat from June 1 through September 15, or
Exclude Blanding’s turtles from potential nesting habitat from May 15 through July 15.
To exclude turtles from potential nesting habitat: Install a barrier, buried 10 inches,
around suitable nesting habitat.
See the Blanding’s turtle fact sheet for more information regarding nesting.
o Buffer wetlands and waterbodies.
o Disturbed ground should be restored to pre-construction contours and re-vegetated with native
species suitable to the local habitat.
•The Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) tracks bat roost trees and hibernacula plus some
acoustic data, but this information is not exhaustive. Even if there are no bat records listed nearby, all of
Minnesota’s bats, including the federally endangered northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis),
can be found throughout Minnesota. During the active season (approximately April-November) bats
roost underneath bark, in cavities, or in crevices of both live and dead trees. Tree removal can negatively
impact bats by destroying roosting habitat, especially during the pup rearing season when females are
forming maternity roosting colonies and the pups cannot yet fly. To minimize these impacts, the DNR
recommends that tree removal be avoided from June 1 through August 15.
•Please visit the DNR Rare Species Guide for more information on the habitat use of state-listed species
and recommended measures to avoid or minimize impacts.
•Please report incidental sightings of state-listed species via the DNR Plant and Animal Observation Form.
Monticello Industrial AUAR
MCE-2025-00610
Page 3 of 3
Federally Protected Species
•To ensure compliance with federal law, conduct a federal regulatory review using the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service's (USFWS) online Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) tool.
Environmental Review and Permitting
•Please include a copy of this letter and the MCE-generated Final Project Report in any state or local
license or permit application. Please note that measures to avoid or minimize disturbance to the above
rare features may be included as restrictions or conditions in any required permits or licenses.
•Given the potential presence of state protected species, we encourage submission of Natural Heritage
Review requests to ensure avoidance of take for these species and to determine survey needs as
individual projects are planned for the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR).
The Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS), a collection of databases that contains information about
Minnesota’s rare natural features, is maintained by the Division of Ecological and Water Resources, Department
of Natural Resources. The NHIS is continually updated as new information becomes available and is the most
complete source of data on Minnesota's native plant communities, rare species, and other rare features.
However, the NHIS is not an exhaustive inventory and does not contain the locations of all rare features in the
state. Therefore, ecologically significant features for which we have no records may exist within the project area.
If additional information becomes available regarding rare features in the vicinity of the project, further review
may be necessary.
For environmental review purposes, the results of this Natural Heritage Review are valid for one year; the results
are only valid for the project location and project description provided with the request. If project details
change or the project has not occurred within one year, please resubmit the project for review within one
year of initiating project activities. Resubmit by selecting Clone Project as Draft on the project page in MCE.
The Natural Heritage Review does not constitute project approval by the Department of Natural Resources.
Instead, it identifies issues regarding known occurrences of rare features and potential impacts to these rare
features. Visit Natural Heritage Review for additional information regarding this process, survey guidance, and
other related information. For information on the environmental review process or other natural resource
concerns, please contact your DNR Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist.
Thank you for consulting us on this matter and for your interest in preserving Minnesota's rare natural
resources.
Sincerely,
Molly Barrett
Natural Heritage Review Specialist
molly.barrett@state.mn.us
Cc: Melissa Collins, Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist, Central (Region 3)
Cc: Catherine Plank, Assistant Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist, Central (Region 3)
Appendix D:
Greenhouse Gas
Analysis
Minnesota Climate Calculator: Project Summary Report Date Prepared:10/20/2025
x Background Information
Monticello Industrial AUAR - Scenario 1
Subp. 14, Industrial, commercial, institutional facilities
Wright
4/1/2027
2034
50
Grid Average
Portion of Building Electricity Consumption to be Generated On-Site via Renewables or Supplied through the Purchase of Renewable Energy Credits (RECs)0%
Portion of Building Natural Gas Consumption to be Supplied from Renewable Sources 0%
Yes
x Summary Results **Results may be incomplete due to missing user inputs**
Project Lifetime 57
Unit tons
Note: NA indicates that emissions were not quantified and/or are not applicable.
HFC leakage
Land use change (operations)
Total
On-road vehicles
Treatment of waste on-site
Manure management
Phase
CO2e Emissions
Construction
Operation
Cumulative Annualized
117,457.85
2,383.50
126,621.97
19,939.55
0.78 44.57
398.93 7.00
2,060.66
41.82
2,221.44
349.82
Material inputs
Transportation of material inputs
Employee commuting
Construction equipment
Land use change (construction)
Construction waste
Building energy consumption
Coal production
Natural gas and oil products
Industrial processes
Project Name
Project Category (primary)
Project Category (secondary)
Location (County)
Construction Start Date
Operational Year
Operational Lifetime (Years)
Electricity Provider
Paving and Landscaping
Demolition
Site Preparation
Grading
Building Construction
Architectural Coatings
Construction Stage
Building Construction Project?
NA
NA
Duration (Days)
546
328
846
8,463
601
601
Treatment of wastewater on-site
Treatment of waste off-site
Enteric fermentation
7,262,072.29
NA
NA
247.18
NA
5,626.18
NA
NA
127,404.78
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
14,089.12
NA
320,692.54
NA
913.99
NA
NA
138,873.65 7,915,797.78
52,097.45
The results shown below were generated using the Minnesota Climate Calculator. The emissions quantified account for the full greenhouse gas impact of a potential project throughout the construction
and operational phases of the project. This includes emissions from project activities that occur on-site as well as emissions that occur upstream and downstream of the project. The results are based on
user inputs and assumptions; actual project emissions may vary.
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
8,000,000
9,000,000
to
n
s
C
O
2
e
Cumulative Lifetime Emissions
Material inputs
Employee commuting
Construction equipment
Land use change (construction)
Construction waste
Building energy consumption
HFC leakage
On-road vehicles
Treatment of waste on-site
Treatment of waste off-site
Minnesota Climate Calculator: Project Summary Report 1 of 5
x User Inputs
Note: NA indicates that emissions were not quantified and/or activity is not applicable.
Material Inputs
Quantity
375.00
12,068.00
150.00
600,000.00
750.00
0.00
30.00
9,000.00
150.00
Employee Commuting
13.2
Construction Equipment
Demolition Site
Preparation Grading Building
Construction
Architectural
Coatings
Paving and
Landscaping
Air Compressors 0 0 0 0 6 0
Cement and Mortar Mixers 0 0 0 0 0 0
Concrete/Industrial Saws 8 0 0 0 0 0
Cranes 0 0 0 7 0 0
Excavators 24 0 16 0 0 0
Forklifts 0 0 0 24 0 0
Generator Sets 0 0 0 8 0 0
Graders 0 0 8 0 0 0
Pavers 0 0 0 0 0 16
Paving Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 16
Rollers 0 0 0 0 0 16
Rubber Tired Dozers 16 24 8 0 0 0
Scrapers 0 0 16 0 0 0
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 32 16 21 0 0
Welders 0 0 0 8 0 0
Land Use Change
Wetlands, forested
Wetlands, not forested
Forest
Rivers and streams
Brush and grassland
Cropland
Livestock rangeland/pastureland
Lawn/landscaping
Green Infrastructure: Constructed wetlands, paved
Green Infrastructure: Constructed wetlands, vegetated
Green Infrastructure: Constructed green roofs
Green Infrastructure: Constructed permeable pavements
Impervious surface
Stormwater pond (wet sedimentation basin)
Equipment Type
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Fuel Type
Average One-Way Commute Length (miles)
Land Use Type
0.00
0.00 NA
30.75 22.26 NA
Acres
Pre-Construction Post-Construction Post-Operation
0.00
1.00 NA
444.00 0.00 NA
28.00 25.25 NA
0.00 0.00 NA
36.25
0.00 NA
0.00 32.00 NA
0.00 0.00 NA
0.00 289.49 NA
11.00 170.00 NA
0.00 10.00 NA
0.00 0.00 NA
0.00 0.00 NA
Number of Hours per Day by Construction Stage
Domestic
Unknown
Unknown
82%
11%
0%
2%
2%
3%
Percent of Employees
Single Occupancy Vehicle
Carpool
Motorcycle500
1400
400
Bus
Transit Rail
Bike/Walk
Transportation ModeConstruction Stage
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Material Type
Aluminum
Asphalt
Brick
Concrete
Glass
Insulation (residential)
Insulation (commercial)
Steel
Wood Products
Unit
Unknown
Tons
Tons
Tons
Tons
Tons
Tons
Tons
Tons
Tons
100Paving and Landscaping
Grading
Building Construction
Architectural Coatings
Daily Average Number of Employees Commuting
500
100
Demolition
Site Preparation
Diesel
Geographical Sourcing
Unknown
Domestic
Minnesota Climate Calculator: Project Summary Report 2 of 5
Number
Number of mature trees removed 15
Number of new trees planted 15
Construction Waste
Material Type Quantity (tons)
Aluminum 0.00
Asphalt 0.00
Brick 6.00
Concrete 18000.00
Glass 22.50
Insulation 3.00
Steel 0.00
Wood Products 7.50
Mixed Waste 0.00
Building Energy Consumption
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Institutional
Other
Emissions from Coal Production
Mixed Coal
Anthracite Coal
Bituminous Coal
Subbituminous Coal
Lignite Coal
Coal Coke
Emissions from Natural Gas and Oil Products
Natural Gas Assumptions
NA
NA
Industrial Processes
Product Type
Cement
Lime
Limestone Use
Magnesium
Iron and Steel
Ammonia
Aluminum
Nitric Acid
Trees
Natural Gas
Renewable Natural Gas
Propane
Coal Type
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Electricity
NA
NA
NA
Quantity (tons/year)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Renewable Diesel
Fuel Type Incremental Throughput
Building Type
NA
NA
NA
NA
Gallons/year
Gallons/year
Emission Factor (kgCO2e/ton)
NA
NA
Gallons/year
Gallons/year
Gallons/year
Gallons/year
24,460.01 3,619.38
46,860.06
Incremental Production (tons/year)
Cubic Feet/year
Cubic Feet/year
Gallons/year
Gallons/year
Gallons/year
35,534.88 0.00 1,661.56
656,392.90
Unit
Biodiesel 20
Distillate Fuel Oil No. 1
Distillate Fuel Oil No. 2
Distillate Fuel Oil No. 4
Residual Fuel Oil No. 5
Residual Fuel Oil No. 6
Leakage and Venting Emissions (kgCO2e/MMBtu)
Percent Reduction in Leakage and Venting Emissions
NA
Energy Intensity (Btu/sq ft/year)
Gasoline
NA
NA
NA
NA
48,219.03 0.00
0.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Natural Gas Propane
Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG)
Kerosene
Kerosene Jet Fuel
Biodiesel 100
18,096.91
30,766.13
229,952.20
233.51
3,659.93
0.00 0.00 0.00
NA
NA
Gallons/year
Gallons/year
Gallons/year
Gallons/year
0.00 8,191.66
Kerosene or Fuel Oil
Minnesota Climate Calculator: Project Summary Report 3 of 5
HFC Leakage
Building Type
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Institutional
On-Road Vehicles
Treatment of Waste On-Site
Treatment of Wastewater On-Site
NA
Treatment of Waste Off-Site
Quantity
Number of single family households 0 lb/household/day
Number of employees (commercial)0 lb/employee/day
Number of employees (industrial)1000 lb/employee/day
Number of employees (institutional)0 lb/employee/day
Visitors per year (public venues)0 lb/visitor
Enteric Fermentation and Manure Management
Anaerobic
digester
Anaerobic
lagoon -
liquid
Cattle deep
litter Composting Daily spread Deep pit Dry lot Liquid/
slurry
Pasture,
range,
paddock
Poultry with
litter
Poultry
without
litter
Solid storage
Bulls NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Beef cows NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Beef heifers NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Steer stockers NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Heifer stockers NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Feedlot beef NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Beef calves NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Dairy heifers NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Dairy cows NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Dairy calves NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Swine, <55 lbs NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Swine 55-330 lbs NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Swine 330+ lbs NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Poultry, layers NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Poultry, pullets NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Poultry, chickens NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Poultry, broilers NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Turkeys NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
0%
Livestock Type Population
Speed Bin (miles/hr)
Fleet Average
0-30
Percent of Building Area Utilized
31-55
100%
100%
100%
100%
Additional VMT (miles/year)
23400000
0
0
NA
56-75
Activity
NA
NA
NA
Product Type
100%
7.00
10.53
Waste Generation Rate Unit
0
Population Served by Treatment Plant
Waste Treatment Practice Quantity of Waste Treated (tons/year)
Production (MT/year)
8.93
3.55
1.72
Percentage of Manure Management System
Landfilled
Combusted -
Percent of manure applied or sold for application to agricultural soils (pasture or cropland) as fertilizer
Percent of Waste
0%
0%
Recycled
Waste Treatment Practice
Composted
Minnesota Climate Calculator: Project Summary Report 4 of 5
x Notes
Mitigation Measures
Adaptation Strategies
Land use change (operations)
On-road vehicles
Treatment of waste on-site
Treatment of wastewater on-site
Treatment of waste off-site
Building energy consumption
Coal production
Natural gas and oil products
Industrial processes
HFC leakage
Enteric fermentation
Manure management
Land use change (construction)
Material inputs
Construction waste
General Notes
Transportation of material inputs
Employee commuting
Construction equipment
Minnesota Climate Calculator: Project Summary Report 5 of 5
Minnesota Climate Calculator: Project Summary Report Date Prepared:10/20/2025
x Background Information
Monticello Industrial AUAR - Scenario 2
Subp. 14, Industrial, commercial, institutional facilities
Wright
4/1/2027
2040
50
Grid Average
Portion of Building Electricity Consumption to be Generated On-Site via Renewables or Supplied through the Purchase of Renewable Energy Credits (RECs)0%
Portion of Building Natural Gas Consumption to be Supplied from Renewable Sources 0%
Yes
x Summary Results **Results may be incomplete due to missing user inputs**
Project Lifetime 63
Unit tons
Note: NA indicates that emissions were not quantified and/or are not applicable.
520,974.50
The results shown below were generated using the Minnesota Climate Calculator. The emissions quantified account for the full greenhouse gas impact of a potential project throughout the construction
and operational phases of the project. This includes emissions from project activities that occur on-site as well as emissions that occur upstream and downstream of the project. The results are based on
user inputs and assumptions; actual project emissions may vary.
NA
3,020,465.35 190,289,316.78
Treatment of wastewater on-site
Treatment of waste off-site
Enteric fermentation
11,989,982.68
NA
NA
372.73
NA
21,190.94
NA
NA
190,317.19
NA
NA
2,793,425.57
NA
175,985,810.72
23,481.87
NA
1,335,029.14
NA
8,269.44
NA NA
NA
Duration (Days)
546
328
846
8,463
601
601
Operational Year
Operational Lifetime (Years)
Electricity Provider
Paving and Landscaping
Demolition
Site Preparation
Grading
Building Construction
Architectural Coatings
Construction Stage
Building Construction Project?
Project Name
Project Category (primary)
Project Category (secondary)
Location (County)
Construction Start Date
Building energy consumption
Coal production
Natural gas and oil products
Industrial processes
Phase
CO2e Emissions
Construction
Operation
Cumulative Annualized
197,881.21
4,049.70
211,458.70
19,939.55
0.70 43.83
664.89 10.55
3,140.97
64.28
3,356.49
316.50
Material inputs
Transportation of material inputs
Employee commuting
Construction equipment
Land use change (construction)
Construction waste
HFC leakage
Land use change (operations)
Total
On-road vehicles
Treatment of waste on-site
Manure management
0
50,000,000
100,000,000
150,000,000
200,000,000
250,000,000
to
n
s
C
O
2
e
Cumulative Lifetime Emissions
Material inputs
Employee commuting
Construction equipment
Land use change (construction)
Construction waste
Building energy consumption
Industrial processes
HFC leakage
On-road vehicles
Treatment of waste on-site
Treatment of waste off-site
Minnesota Climate Calculator: Project Summary Report 1 of 5
x User Inputs
Note: NA indicates that emissions were not quantified and/or activity is not applicable.
Material Inputs
Quantity
625.00
47,485.68
250.00
1,000,000.00
1,250.00
0.00
50.00
15,000.00
250.00
Employee Commuting
13.2
Construction Equipment
Demolition Site
Preparation Grading Building
Construction
Architectural
Coatings
Paving and
Landscaping
Air Compressors 0 0 0 0 6 0
Cement and Mortar Mixers 0 0 0 0 0 0
Concrete/Industrial Saws 8 0 0 0 0 0
Cranes 0 0 0 7 0 0
Excavators 24 0 16 0 0 0
Forklifts 0 0 0 24 0 0
Generator Sets 0 0 0 8 0 0
Graders 0 0 8 0 0 0
Pavers 0 0 0 0 0 16
Paving Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 16
Rollers 0 0 0 0 0 16
Rubber Tired Dozers 16 24 8 0 0 0
Scrapers 0 0 16 0 0 0
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0 32 16 21 0 0
Welders 0 0 0 8 0 0
Land Use Change
Wetlands, forested
Wetlands, not forested
Forest
Rivers and streams
Brush and grassland
Cropland
Livestock rangeland/pastureland
Lawn/landscaping
Green Infrastructure: Constructed wetlands, paved
Green Infrastructure: Constructed wetlands, vegetated
Green Infrastructure: Constructed green roofs
Green Infrastructure: Constructed permeable pavements
Impervious surface
Stormwater pond (wet sedimentation basin)
Geographical Sourcing
Unknown
Domestic
Tons
Tons
Tons
Tons
Tons
Tons
Tons
Tons
Tons
167Paving and Landscaping
Grading
Building Construction
Architectural Coatings
Daily Average Number of Employees Commuting
835
167
Demolition
Site Preparation
Diesel
Unknown
Bus
Transit Rail
Bike/Walk
Transportation ModeConstruction Stage
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Material Type
Aluminum
Asphalt
Brick
Concrete
Glass
Insulation (residential)
Insulation (commercial)
Steel
Wood Products
Unit
Number of Hours per Day by Construction Stage
Domestic
Unknown
Unknown
82%
11%
0%
2%
2%
3%
Percent of Employees
Single Occupancy Vehicle
Carpool
Motorcycle835
2338
668
11.00 233.00 NA
0.00 18.00 NA
0.00 0.00 NA
0.00 0.00 NA
0.00 NA
0.00 38.00 NA
0.00 0.00 NA
0.00 205.26 NA
1.00 NA
444.00 0.00 NA
28.00 25.25 NA
0.00 0.00 NA
36.25
0.00 NA
30.75 29.49 NA
Acres
Pre-Construction Post-Construction Post-Operation
0.00
Land Use Type
0.00
Fuel Type
Average One-Way Commute Length (miles)
Equipment Type
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Diesel
Minnesota Climate Calculator: Project Summary Report 2 of 5
Number
Number of mature trees removed 25
Number of new trees planted 20
Construction Waste
Material Type Quantity (tons)
Aluminum 0.00
Asphalt 0.00
Brick 10.00
Concrete 30000.00
Glass 37.50
Insulation 5.00
Steel 0.00
Wood Products 12.50
Mixed Waste 0.00
Building Energy Consumption
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Institutional
Other
Emissions from Coal Production
Mixed Coal
Anthracite Coal
Bituminous Coal
Subbituminous Coal
Lignite Coal
Coal Coke
Emissions from Natural Gas and Oil Products
Natural Gas Assumptions
NA
NA
Industrial Processes
Product Type
Cement
Lime
Limestone Use
Magnesium
Iron and Steel
Ammonia
Aluminum
Nitric Acid
3,659.93
0.00 0.00 0.00
937.36
9,332.16
Gallons/year
Gallons/year
Gallons/year
Gallons/year
0.00 8,191.66
Kerosene or Fuel Oil
Energy Intensity (Btu/sq ft/year)
Gasoline
1,162.63
8.59
16,178.31
1,326.60
48,219.03 0.00
0.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Natural Gas Propane
Liquified Petroleum Gas (LPG)
Kerosene
Kerosene Jet Fuel
Biodiesel 100
18,096.91
30,766.13
229,952.20
233.51
1,661.56
656,392.90
Unit
Biodiesel 20
Distillate Fuel Oil No. 1
Distillate Fuel Oil No. 2
Distillate Fuel Oil No. 4
Residual Fuel Oil No. 5
Residual Fuel Oil No. 6
Leakage and Venting Emissions (kgCO2e/MMBtu)
Percent Reduction in Leakage and Venting Emissions
NA
24,460.01 3,619.38
46,860.06
Incremental Production (tons/year)
Cubic Feet/year
Cubic Feet/year
Gallons/year
Gallons/year
Gallons/year
35,534.88 0.00
1,804.37
NA
NA
NA
Gallons/year
Gallons/year
Emission Factor (kgCO2e/ton)
863.12
NA
Gallons/year
Gallons/year
Gallons/year
Gallons/year
Building Type
0.00
1000000.00
0.00
Quantity (tons/year)
0.00
0.00
0.00
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Renewable Diesel
Fuel Type Incremental Throughput
Trees
Natural Gas
Renewable Natural Gas
Propane
Coal Type
200000.00
0.00
NA
NA
NA
Electricity
Minnesota Climate Calculator: Project Summary Report 3 of 5
HFC Leakage
Building Type
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Institutional
On-Road Vehicles
Treatment of Waste On-Site
Treatment of Wastewater On-Site
NA
Treatment of Waste Off-Site
Quantity
Number of single family households 0 lb/household/day
Number of employees (commercial)0 lb/employee/day
Number of employees (industrial)10000 lb/employee/day
Number of employees (institutional)0 lb/employee/day
Visitors per year (public venues)0 lb/visitor
Enteric Fermentation and Manure Management
Anaerobic
digester
Anaerobic
lagoon -
liquid
Cattle deep
litter Composting Daily spread Deep pit Dry lot Liquid/
slurry
Pasture,
range,
paddock
Poultry with
litter
Poultry
without
litter
Solid storage
Bulls NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Beef cows NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Beef heifers NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Steer stockers NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Heifer stockers NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Feedlot beef NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Beef calves NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Dairy heifers NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Dairy cows NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Dairy calves NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Swine, <55 lbs NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Swine 55-330 lbs NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Swine 330+ lbs NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Poultry, layers NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Poultry, pullets NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Poultry, chickens NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Poultry, broilers NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
Turkeys NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
0%
Percent of Waste
0%
0%
Recycled
Waste Treatment Practice
Composted
Landfilled
Combusted -
Percent of manure applied or sold for application to agricultural soils (pasture or cropland) as fertilizer
8.93
3.55
1.72
Percentage of Manure Management System
NA
56-75
Activity
NA
NA
NA
Product Type
100%
7.00
10.53
Waste Generation Rate Unit
0
Population Served by Treatment Plant
Waste Treatment Practice Quantity of Waste Treated (tons/year)
Production (MT/year)
Percent of Building Area Utilized
31-55
100%
100%
100%
100%
Additional VMT (miles/year)
104000000
0
0
Livestock Type Population
Speed Bin (miles/hr)
Fleet Average
0-30
Minnesota Climate Calculator: Project Summary Report 4 of 5
x Notes
Construction waste
General Notes
Transportation of material inputs
Employee commuting
Construction equipment
Land use change (construction)
Material inputs
Mitigation Measures
Adaptation Strategies
Land use change (operations)
On-road vehicles
Treatment of waste on-site
Treatment of wastewater on-site
Treatment of waste off-site
Building energy consumption
Coal production
Natural gas and oil products
Industrial processes
HFC leakage
Enteric fermentation
Manure management
Minnesota Climate Calculator: Project Summary Report 5 of 5
Mitigation Measures (Step 5)
Select Emissions Source Phase ID Measure Title Measure Description
Yes Land use change Construction M-1E-01 Create New Open Space with Native
Vegetation and Habitat
Convert previously developed areas to vegetated open spaces. By creating new vegetated areas from previously settled land, the project would
sequester carbon dioxide that would not have been captured without the land conversion. Trees and other vegetation also incorporate carbon into
their biomass during their growth phase (stored carbon). Prior to establishing new vegetation, conduct information gathering to assess the site
history, soil type, hydrology, topography, and wildlife populations to determine appropriate native vegetation that will be well adapted to the local
environment. Establish project goals, including GHG emission reduction and restoration native pollinator and/or native habitat. Other important
goals may include expanding contiguous habitat and wildlife corridors for threatened or endangered species or increasing biodiversity. Create a
detailed planting and management plan that describes actions for site preparation, planting, habitat enhancement, water management, and invasive
species control. Maximize long-term establishment success by conducting regular monitoring. This may involve tracking plant growth, soil conditions,
and wildlife movement. Utilize the monitoring data to perform regular maintenance. Adjust the management plan as needed to keep the site healthy
and ensure attainment of project goal(s).
Yes Land use change Construction M-1E-02 Expand Urban Tree Planting
Require tree planting in urban areas. Planting trees sequesters carbon dioxide while the trees are actively growing, thereby reducing GHGs. The
amount of carbon dioxide sequestered depends on the type of tree and the duration of the active growing period. Urban trees may also provide shade,
which can reduce the urban heat island effect and building cooling demands. Buildings that use less electricity for air conditioning reduce energy
consumption and associated indirect GHG emission. The selection of tree type is critical to minimize the use of additional water. Trees that have high
water demands that are met through GHG-intensive water (such as water transported over long distances) can impact the amount of GHG reductions
achieved by this measure.
No Land use change Construction M-1E-03 Clear Vegetation from Area to be Flooded Reduce the amount of organic material flooded during construction. Flooded areas can result in organic decomposition, which can contribute to
methane emissions.
No Land use change Construction M-1E-04 Land Agreements for Tree Removal
Engage landowners to develop a strategy for composting, chipping, processing, or reusing trees removed from their properties. The strategy should
prioritize cost-effective options that minimize GHG emissions from stored tree carbon. If appropriate, consider retaining stumps or logs on the project
site to improve soil health and support wildlife habitat.
No Land use change Construction M-1E-05 Wetland Restoration
Restore wetlands to improve their function and ability to sequester GHG emissions. For example, rewet drained wetlands, remove non-native plans,
exclude livestock, and plant native wetland species. Because wetlands can also represent a GHG source, ensure the restored wetland and selected
restoration strategies will effectively reduce GHG emissions.
No Land use change Construction M-1E-06 Afforestation Plant trees on previously deforested land.
No Land use change Construction M-1E-07 Establish a Carbon Sequestration Project Establish a carbon sequestration project. Carbon emissions are sequestered by embedding the carbon in a structure that will hold the emissions and
keep them out of the atmosphere. Sequestration can happen through biological, chemical, or physical processes.
Yes Building energy
consumption Operation M-2A-01 Require Energy Efficient Appliances Install ENERGY STAR-certified appliances that exceed the energy efficiency of conventional appliances. By committing to more efficient appliances,
the building’s energy use is reduced, thereby reducing GHG emissions.
No Building energy
consumption Operation M-2A-02 Install Alternative Type of Water Heater in
Place of Gas Storage Tank Heater
Install water heaters that are less emissions intensive than a natural gas conventional storage tank water heater. Alternatives may include electric
conventional storage tanks, solar water heaters with natural gas backup, or solar water heaters with electric backup. Each alternative reduces GHG
emissions in a slightly different way. An electric storage tank heater displaces natural gas consumption with electricity use, replacing more emissions-
intensive natural gas with less emissions-intensive electricity. A solar water heater with electric backup reduces GHG emissions by displacing natural
gas with zero-emission solar energy when water is heated by the system’s solar collectors and grid electricity when the back-up function is utilized. A
solar water heater with natural gas backup reduces emissions by displacing natural gas with solar energy when water is heated by the solar
collectors.
No Building energy
consumption Operation M-2A-03 Limit Wood Burning Devices and Natural
Gas/Propane Fireplaces
Prohibit installation of any wood burning devices (i.e., woodstoves and fireplaces) or natural gas or propane fireplaces. This avoids the combustion of
biomass, natural gas, and propane, thereby reducing associated biogenic and non-biogenic GHG emissions. The most efficient alternatives to wood
burning devices or gas fireplaces are electric fireplace inserts and electric heat pumps.
No Building energy
consumption Operation M-2A-04 Install Electric Ranges in Place of Gas
Ranges
Install electric ranges (i.e., cooktop plus oven) in place of gas ranges. An electric range displaces natural gas consumption with electricity use,
replacing a more emissions-intensive fossil fuel-based source of energy with electricity from the grid that is increasingly transitioning to renewable
sources.
Use the filters in the table below to identify potential mitigation measures to reduce GHG emissions from the proposed project. Use the column on the far left to select measures you plan to implement.
Select Generate PDF button once you've made your desired selections.
Select All Unhidden Measures Reset all Selected MeasuresGeneratePDF
No Building energy
consumption Operation M-2A-05 Install Electric Heat Pumps
Install electric heat pumps as alternatives to conventional furnaces or air conditioners. Electric heat pumps use electricity to transfer heat between
cool and warm spaces to either provide cooling or heating. When cooling is needed during the summer months, the pumps move warmer inside air to
outside. The pumps operate in reverse during the winter, moving warmer outdoor air into the building to provide heat. Because heat pumps move
warm air instead of generating heat, they are more efficient than conventional heating and cooling systems. When electric heat pumps replace fossil-
fuel heating or cooling sources, they achieve a dual efficiency and decarbonization benefit. The most common types of heat pumps collect heat from
the air (are air-to-air), water (water-to-air), or ground (geothermal-to-air). The performance and emissions reductions achieved by electric heat pumps
depend heavily on the system type, cooling and heating loads, climate zone, season, and other project-specific variables.
No Building energy
consumption Operation M-2A-06 Require Energy Efficient Boilers Install boilers with higher energy efficiencies than what is required by regulation. Improving boiler efficiency decreases fuel consumption for the same
amount of energy output, thereby reducing associated GHG emissions
No Building energy
consumption Operation M-2A-07 Install Whole-House Fans
Install whole-house fans in new construction. Whole-house fans draw cooler outdoor air through open windows, exhaust the warmer air into the attic,
and then expel the air outside through attic vents. Whole-house cooling using a whole house fan can substitute for an air conditioner most of the year
in most climates, resulting in a reduction in emissions associated with building energy use. Whole-house fans may be inappropriate in locations near
sources that generate air pollutants during the evening hours, such as major roads and freeways.
No Building energy
consumption Operation M-2A-08 Install Cool Roofs and/or Cool Walls
Install cool roofs and/or walls in place of dark roofs and/or conventional walls. Cool roofs have been designed to reflect more sunlight and absorb
less heat than a standard roof, keeping buildings cooler in the summertime and thus reducing air-conditioning loads. Complementary to cool roofs,
cool walls achieve a similar result through using more reflective paints or materials. This reduces the electricity needed to provide cooling but can
potentially increase the energy needed to provide winter heating, thereby reducing associated GHG emissions depending on the project parameters
(e.g., climate, level of implementation, carbon intensity of local electricity provider). However, the winter heating penalty may be small with lower
levels of winter sunlight due to shorter daylight hours and more overcast skies.
No Building energy
consumption Operation M-2A-09 Install Green Roofs in Place of Dark Roofs Install green roofs in place of dark roofs. Green roofs consist of a layer of vegetation on top of buildings, which provides natural insulation and climate
control benefits. This reduces the electricity and natural gas needed to provide cooling and heating, thereby reducing associated GHG emissions.
No Building energy
consumption Operation M-2A-10 Install Cool Pavements
Install cool pavement in place of dark pavement. Cool pavement helps to lower ambient outdoor air temperatures when compared to dark-colored,
heat-absorbent pavement such as asphalt. This reduces the electricity needed to provide cooling, thereby reducing associated GHG emissions,
depending on the project parameters (e.g., climate, carbon intensity of local utility).
No Building energy
consumption Operation M-2A-11 Improve Insulation Standards
Use building insulation that exceeds minimum code standards. Improving insulation reduces energy demand for both heating and cooling and thus
reduces GHG emissions from reduced energy consumption. Adequate insulation improves buildings’ thermal regulation as it helps avoid extreme
heat gains and losses.
No Building energy
consumption Operation M-2A-12 Limit Window-To-Wall Ratio Limit the window-to-wall ratio (WWR) of new buildings. Buildings with fully glazed façades are dependent on heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
and tend to be highly exposed to solar. The optimal WWR for energy efficiency depends on the climate and orientation of the building.
No Building energy
consumption Operation M-2A-13 Maximize Solar Shading Maximize building shade during the summer months. Shading is a passive and inexpensive way to reduce summer heat loads, and thus the need for
air conditioning. Examples include vegetation with seasonal variation and envelope elements that reflect natural light.
No Building energy
consumption Operation M-2A-14 Optimize Natural Ventilation
Maximize natural building ventilation in new construction. Façade design allows natural ventilation at night to cool the building and reduce peak
daytime temperatures in summer. This in turn reduces the need for air conditioning, which reduces building electricity consumption and associated
emissions.
No Building energy
consumption Operation M-2A-15 Obtain Third-party HVAC Commissioning
and Verification of Energy Savings
Require third-party review of heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems to ensure proper installation and construction of energy
reduction features. HVAC commissioning and third-party verification of energy savings may be obtained for thermal efficiency components including
HVAC systems, insulation, windows, and water heating.
No Building energy
consumption Operation M-2A-16 Require Higher Efficacy Public Street and
Area Lighting
Install higher efficacy public street and area lighting in place of typical or existing lamps. Installing more efficacious lamps, such as light-emitting
diodes, will use less electricity while producing the same amount of light, thereby reducing the associated indirect GHG emissions.
No Building energy
consumption Operation M-2A-17 Replace Incandescent Traffic Lights with
LED Traffic Lights
Replace incandescent traffic lights with more energy-efficient light-emitting diode (LED) traffic lights. Installing LEDs reduces electricity demand and
thus results in a reduction in indirect GHG emissions.
No Building energy
consumption Operation M-2A-18 Procure Electricity from Lower Carbon
Intensity Power Supply
Procure electricity with a lower carbon intensity than the primary product offered by the local provider (often an investor-owned utility). This would
displace the electricity demand that would ordinarily be supplied by the local electricity provider’s energy mix. Electricity provided by local electricity
providers has varying carbon intensities based on the portfolio of energy sources. Procurement of electricity of a lower carbon intensity would
displace the emissions that would have been produced had the electricity been supplied by the default energy mix and thus results in a reduction in
GHG emissions. Green power supply options include utility green power products, community choice aggregation, shared renewables (e.g.,
community solar), and power purchase agreements.
No Building energy
consumption Operation M-2A-19 Require All-Electric Development
Install all-electric appliances and end uses. Using electric instead of natural gas-powered appliances and end uses replaces a more emissions-
intensive fossil fuel source of energy with a less emissions-intensive source of energy, electricity from the grid that is increasingly transitioning to
renewable sources.
No Building energy
consumption Operation M-2A-20 Require Zero Net Energy Buildings
Design and construct zero net energy (ZNE) buildings. A ZNE building foremost reduces GHG emissions by reducing energy use through more efficient
design. Further, the building avoids GHG emissions either by using no emissions-generating energy sources or offsetting the building energy
emissions by exporting emission-free energy (typically from onsite renewables).
No Building energy
consumption Operation M-2A-21 Require Renewable-Surplus Buildings
Install onsite renewable energy in an amount that offsets more emissions than the amount generated from the development’s electricity use and
onsite fuel consumption. Installing zero-emission renewable energy displaces emissions from grid electricity that would otherwise be used, thereby
reducing GHG emissions. Implementation of this measure would result in buildings that reduce more GHG emissions than they generate through
surplus generation of energy from renewables, sometimes known as carbon-negative buildings. The amount of renewable energy required for a
building to have net negative GHG emissions is largely determined by the number of emissions from onsite fuel consumption and the carbon intensity
of the local electricity provider.
No Building energy
consumption Operation M-2A-22 Establish Onsite Renewable Energy
Systems
Generate electricity from an onsite renewable or zero-emission power system. This displaces the electricity demand that would ordinarily be supplied
by the local electricity provider. Electricity generation provided by local electricity providers have varying carbon intensities based on the portfolio of
energy sources. Some renewable energy systems, such as fuel cells, may not be completely GHG emissions-free, but may still have lower emissions
than the electricity provided by the local electricity provider (unless the electricity provider has a relatively high renewable portfolio), thereby reducing
GHG emissions. Zero-emissions power systems, such as solar panels, result in the greatest magnitude of emissions reductions. Onsite renewable
systems can also provide back-up power as an alternative to diesel generators in the event of grid power outages or demand response events.
No Building energy
consumption Operation M-2A-23 Use Renewable Natural Gas or Green
Hydrogen Fuel
Use renewable natural gas (RNG) in buildings instead of traditional natural gas. RNG has much lower carbon emissions and can be used in standard
gas appliances like furnaces and water heaters. Alternatively, consider green hydrogen as a primary fuel source. Use of hydrogen would likely require
some buildings retrofits or updates to appliances.
No Building energy
consumption Operation M-2A-24 Encourage Residential Participation in
Existing Demand Response Program(s)
Market and promote the local utility’s manual (i.e., behavioral) demand response program(s) to encourage participation from residents in the project
area. During demand response events, program users shift or conserve electricity, thereby reducing the associated indirect GHG emissions. Methods
of engaging customers in demand response efforts include offering time-based rates, such as time-of-use pricing, critical peak pricing, variable peak
pricing, real-time pricing, and critical peak rebates. Users are encouraged to respond to time-based rates or other forms of financial incentives with
smart phone app, email, phone call, and/or text notifications.
No Building energy
consumption Operation M-2A-25 Use Microgrids and Energy Storage
Design, install, and manage a microgrid. Microgrids offer the opportunity to deploy more zero-emission electricity sources, thereby reducing GHG
emissions. The microgrid manager (e.g., local energy management system) can balance generation from non-controllable renewable power sources,
such as solar, with distributed, controllable generation, such as natural gas-fueled combustion turbines. They can also use energy storage and
batteries in electric vehicles to balance energy distribution and usage within the microgrid.
No Building energy
consumption Operation M-2A-26 Provide Battery Storage
Strategically deploy battery storage. While energy storage has no direct emissions effect, when deployed strategically, energy storage can make the
grid more flexible, unlocking renewable energy and reducing GHG emissions. When deployed non-strategically, owners of energy storage assets are
more likely to charge their facilities during off-peak periods when power prices are lower, in order to supply power during more expensive peak hours.
Off-peak generation times such as nighttime hours are more likely to be dominated by conventional power sources, which, except for nuclear and
hydropower, are likely to be more emissions intensive.
No Building energy
consumption Operation M-2A-27 Utilize a Combined Heat and Power
System
Use combined heat and power (CHP) systems in place of separate heat and power (SHP) systems. For the same level of power output, CHP systems
use less input energy than traditional SHP generation, resulting in lower GHG emissions. In traditional SHP systems, heat created as a by-product is
wasted as it is released into the surrounding environment. CHP systems harvest thermal energy and use it to heat onsite uses or for processes in
proximity, which reduces the amount of natural gas or other fuel that would otherwise be combusted for heating or for use in those processes. CHP
systems also result in a reduced demand for electricity from the grid, which displaces the GHG emissions from the production of electricity from the
grid.
No Building energy
consumption Operation M-2A-28 Utilize Biomass Energy
Install new biomass or biofuel electricity generation (or cogeneration). Although the direct combustion emissions for biofuels are generally on-par
with other forms of fossil fuel energy, biofuels have a lower life-cycle carbon intensity due to the uptake of carbon from plants used to produce that
fuel. A reasonable reference point for this carbon intensity would be the average carbon intensity of the electricity in the utility that would receive
power from this new biomass plant.
No Land use change Operation M-2F-01
Implement Management Practices to
Improve the Health and Function of
Natural and Working Lands
Implement management strategies aimed at improving the overall health and functionality of natural and working lands as a mechanism for
increasing carbon sequestration and reducing GHG emissions. Management practices may include those that change ecosystem carbon exchange
rates (e.g., cultivated land soil conservation, use of biochar) and those that involve land cover changes. If land conversion is deemed appropriate,
refer to Measure M-1E-1 for recommended implementation and management strategies.
No Land use change Operation M-2F-02 Wildfire Resilience and Management
Implement fuel treatments in forested areas to minimize the likelihood of severe or catastrophic wildfire behavior, thereby minimizing pyrogenic
carbon emissions during a wildfire event. Fuel treatments have the short-term effect of releasing more carbon emissions as understory, ladder fuels,
and forest fuel loads are burned. However, in the long term, treated stands produce fewer emissions compared to untreated stands because treated
stands produce low to moderate fire severity that does not disturb the carbon stock in the overstory canopy. Untreated stands are far more likely to
experience sever behavior that ignites the canopy and releases the stored carbon in the overstory.
No Land use change Operation M-2F-03 Use Rotational Grazing Regularly move cattle between different grazing areas to promote healthy pasture regrowth before resuming grazing.
No Land use change Operation M-2F-04 Reduce Livestock Stocking Density Decrease the amount of cattle stocked per pasture to reduce grazing pressure, which in turn reduces plant defoliation and soil disturbance, which
can mitigate soil carbon loss. Reducing the stocking density also reduces methane emissions by decreasing the animal population.
No Land use change Operation M-2F-05 Plant Cover Crops Plant cover crops during fallow periods to enhance soil carbon storage.
Adaptation Strategies (Step 6)
Step 1: Select Climate Trends Step 2: Select Project Characteristics
Hazardous waste
Agriculture
Livestock
Critical infrastructure
Waste management
New or upgraded buildings
Subsurface infrastructure
Water management
Construction
Increased impervious surface
New, expanded, or rebuilt transportation route
Selection ID Adaptation Strategies Additional Information
Yes S-1A-01
Clear floodplains and other areas subject to flooding of hazardous
contaminants in advance of a flood event from extreme
precipitation.
Develop a coordination plan to clear hazardous contaminants ahead of and/or after a flood event.
No S-1A-02 Conduct ongoing and pre-event stormwater infrastructure
maintenance.
Clean out the storm drains and culverts; Ensure that all maintenance equipment are readily available and working for extreme events (e.g.,
generators).
Yes S-1A-05 Enhance/develop adaptive stormwater management practices
and technologies.
Implement natural buffers and green infrastructure (e.g., bioswales, tree trench; blue roof; vegetated roof; bioretention; green and blue
roofs; preserve or build natural features/ecosystems; Use certified/qualified green infrastructure contractors and engineers; Maintain and/or
expand the urban tree canopy); Ensure adequate culvert sizing and/or replace undersized culverts; Remove impervious surfaces and/or
install permeable surfaces; Ensure sufficient water storage capacity for extreme flooding; Install underground storage systems to detain
runoff in underground receptacles (e.g., culverts, engineered stormwater detention vaults, or perforated pipes); Build a retention pond to
manage stormwater; Implement enhanced roof access to inspect and maintain roof and drainage system; Install oversized roof drains; use
smart ponds.
No S-1A-06 Incorporate flood-proofing measures into new or upgraded
facilities/assets.
Dry or wet-proof facilities (e.g., apply a waterproof veneer); Waterproof key equipment; Install back-up power; Conduct pre-flood event
sandbagging; Install hard flood protection structures (e.g., floodwall, levees, dikes); Install removable barriers; Have movable assets; Seal
buildings; Place critical equipment in waterproof containers or foundation systems; Consider elevation when selecting the site (e.g., Elevate
the facilities and/or assets to be above the flood level).
No S-1A-07 Flood-proof facilities/assets using natural buffers and green
infrastructure.
Maintain and/or expand the urban tree canopy; Use green roofs; Preserve or build natural features/ecosystems; Use certified/qualified green
infrastructure contractors and engineers.
Yes S-1A-10
Ensure there is adequate redundancy and/or backup energy
resources available to maintain necessary operations during
extreme precipitation events.
Implement renewable energy and smart grid technology to optimize energy distribution and reduce outages; Develop off-grid sources for
redundant power supply; Install easy hookups for temporary power; Install backup generators; Diversify energy sources such as by installing
renewable energy; Install battery storage; Incorporate multiple power supplies; Implement a microgrid with integrated energy storage
systems; Join a community energy project to pool resources; Utilize a combined heat and power (CHP) system; Ensure these systems are
designed to be resilient during a projected extreme flood event.
No S-1A-11 Harden the energy infrastructure systems to withstand extreme
precipitation events.
Bury distribution lines; Elevate critical infrastructure above flood levels; Waterproof or seal equipment; Improve drainage systems around
critical infrastructure.
No S-1A-14 Ensure waste management facilities are prepared for extreme
precipitation events.
Waterproof waste storage (e.g., sealed containers; protective barriers); Improve drainage systems around the facility; Elevate the weigh
station area to allow continued receipt of waste deliveries; Ensure access roads to the facility do not flood; When siting the facility, consider
location (e.g., avoid floodplains; elevate the facility).
No S-1A-15 Ensure water infrastructure can withstand projected increases in
average and extreme precipitation.
Install stormwater outfall pumps/lift stations to drain water from the system if outfalls were to become submerged; Implement strong pumps
for backflow prevention; Ensure adequate capacity for wastewater and stormwater collection or treatment; Increase water treatment
capabilities; Incorporate backup generators and fuels sources, as applicable, in a location safe from flooding, for the water infrastructure
system to provide a sustained minimal level of water services in the event of a power outage.
No S-1A-16 Prepare for worst case scenarios regarding extreme precipitation.
Stockpile response materials and store them near areas that will likely need rapid repairs after an extreme rainfall event (e.g., pre-position
emergency power generation capacity, portable pumps, and debris removal equipment); Implement early warning systems for extreme
weather events.
No S-1A-17 When siting and orienting a facility or asset, consider flood risk
from increased precipitation and extreme precipitation events.Avoid development in erosion zones and floodplains; Select a site at higher elevation.
Yes S-1A-18 Maintain or improve ecosystem health to act as a natural barrier to
increasing precipitation and extreme precipitation events.
Avoid or minimize development on key ecosystem areas (e.g., wetlands, trees) to maintain natural barriers; Revegetate with native and/or
deep rooted plants to improve stormwater drainage and flooding; Develop a plan for future ecosystem health; If there is tree planting, plant
tree species that are adapted to current and/or future climate conditions (see: https://extension.umn.edu/creating-climate-ready-
woodlands/recommended-trees).
No S-1A-19 Incorporate stormwater green infrastructure into site plans to
mimic the water storage of natural systems.
Plan installation of bioswales, tree trenches, bioretention cells, raingardens, etc. sized to better address more frequent intense precipitation
events.
No S-1A-20 Develop post-storm plans for the construction site.Develop a coordination plan to clear roads and drainage systems from debris after extreme precipitation events.
No S-1B-01
Ensure hazardous materials are stored in temperature-controlled
environments to accommodate for high temperatures and
heatwaves.
Insulate storage areas; Install temperature monitoring systems with alarms to alert staff; Conduct regular inspections and maintenance of
storage facilities.
No S-1B-02
Consider alternative pavement surfaces and materials that are
more heat-resistant to reduce heat impacts and surface
temperatures.
Use light-colored asphalt pavement to reduce heat absorption and reflect radiation; Use materials for railway tracks and stations that are
resistant to higher heat to prevent buckling and kinks; Install permeable surfaces especially for low-traffic areas such as roadside parking
(along curbs) and parking lots.
No S-1B-03
Incorporate flexible pavement design to accommodate thermal
expansion and prevent buckling from high temperatures and
heatwaves.
Design roads with additional thermal expansion joints; Incorporate polymer-modified asphalt in the pavement mix; Apply reflective coatings.
No S-1B-05 Retain mature trees as part of design and during construction.Inventory trees; mark boundaries around trees to avoid compaction and damage to trunks and roots.
No S-1B-06 Use cooling technologies to reduce surface temperatures during
periods of high temperatures and/or heatwaves.
Use reflective coating; Use high-reflectivity hardscape; Decrease impervious surfaces and/or install permeable surfaces; Incorporate green
infrastructure (e.g., green roofs); Maintain and/or expand urban tree canopy.
No S-1B-07
Consider and adjust to changes in the distribution and prevalence
of heat-tolerant pests by incorporating changes into pest
management for buildings and infrastructure.
Resist intrusion of termites as hardiness zones move north.
No S-1B-08
Use building construction materials that maintain indoor
temperatures and/or are resilient to increasing temperatures
during high heat conditions and heatwaves.
Update building insulation for higher heat thresholds; Use reflective roofing materials; Install energy efficient windows (e.g., double-glazed
windows); Install green roofs and/or green walls; Use light-colored building materials (e.g., cool roofing and sliding materials); Optimize
natural ventilation.
No S-1B-12
Consider how higher temperatures and heatwaves may increase
decomposition rates and the need to improve waste management
practices.
Install a temperature monitoring system to detect and manage heat build-up; Install waste infrastructure that can withstand higher
temperatures such as landfill liners, odor control strategies for organics composting.
No S-1B-13 Ensure subsurface infrastructure (e.g., pipes, SSTA installation)
can withstand high temperatures and heatwaves.
Install sensors to monitor ground temperatures; Use thermal insulation; Implement cooling systems (e.g., ventilation shafts, cooling pipes);
Install temperature sensors for monitoring.
Yes S-1B-14
Ensure there is adequate redundancy and/or backup energy
resources available to maintain necessary operations during
increased cooling demand and/or an extreme heat event.
Implement renewable energy and smart grid technology to optimize energy distribution and reduce outages; Develop off-grid sources for
redundant power supply; Install easy hookups for temporary power; Install backup generators; Diversify energy sources such as by installing
renewable energy; Install battery storage; Incorporate multiple power supplies; Implement a microgrid with integrated energy storage
systems; Join a community energy project to pool resources; Utilize a combined heat and power (CHP) system.
No S-1B-15 Harden the energy infrastructure systems to withstand projected
increasing temperatures and heatwaves.
Increase tension in transmission lines to reduce sag; Add external coolers to transformers; Use more heat-resistant materials (e.g., high-
temperature conductors); Bury lines/cables.
No S-1B-16 Upgrade the electrical systems to handle increased cooling
demand especially from extreme heat events.Consider renewable energy and smart grid technology to optimize energy distribution and reduce outages.
No S-1B-17
Provide cooling systems for critical infrastructure or equipment
sensitive to overheating during periods of high temperatures
and/or heatwaves.
Install back up air conditioning units; Use battery-powered equipment which is less prone to overheating than gas-powered machinery.
No S-1B-18 Implement cooling strategies for construction equipment
vulnerable to high temperatures.
Provide cooling systems for equipment sensitive to overheating; Use battery-powered equipment which is less prone to overheating than gas-
powered machinery.
No S-1B-19
Increase the frequency of maintenance checks to ensure
construction equipment is functioning optimally in high
temperatures and during heatwaves.
Regularly check fluid levels, tire pressure, and hydraulic systems.
No S-1B-20
Use cooling technologies to reduce heat impact on waste
management systems during periods of high temperatures and/or
heatwaves.
Implement cooling systems for waste facility; Install heat-resistant and sealed containers to store waste; Install green infrastructure on the
facility (e.g., green roof; increased vegetation).
Yes S-1B-21 Maintain or improve ecosystem health to mitigate heat from
increasing temperatures and heatwaves.
Avoid or minimize development on key ecosystem areas (e.g., wetlands, trees) to maintain natural cooling systems; Develop a plan for future
ecosystem health; If there is tree planting, plant tree species that are adapted to current and/or future climate conditions (see:
https://extension.umn.edu/creating-climate-ready-woodlands/recommended-trees).
Use the checkboxes below to identify adaptation strategies relevant to selected climate trends and project characteristics. The list of adapation strategies will filter to show strategies that align with
both the climate trends and project characteristics selected. Ensure Macros are enabled for filters to work (see the User Guide tab for instructions on enabling macros). Use the column on the far
left to select strategies you plan to implement as part of your proposed project. Select Generate PDF button once you've made your desired selections.
Heavier, more damaging rain
Average annual precipitation increasing
Average annual temperature increasing
Increasing risk of extreme heat and heatwaves
Early thawing (cold weather warming)
Increasing risk of drought
Select All Unhidden Strategies Reset all Selected Strategies
Reset Climate Trends Reset Project Characteristics
Generate PDF
No S-1B-22 Provide heat protective measures for construction staff who may
be exposed to heat during work duties.Consider different attire/uniforms, more breaks, more shade, more hydration stations, or telecommuting options.
No S-1C-01 Consider impact of increased freeze/thaw cycles for design and
construction of building and road foundations.
Use frost-resistant materials (e.g., frost-resistant concrete and asphalt) to minimize damage like cracking; Insulate foundations; Construct
deeper foundations; Conduct regular maintenance and monitoring to inspect and repair damage.
No S-1C-02 Consider changing thawing conditions when selecting or
upgrading pipes.
Install PVC water pipes (rather than metal cast iron pipes) which are less expensive and easier to install than iron, to minimize breaks and
ensure structural integrity.
No S-1C-03
Regularly monitor the conditions of the construction site, roadway,
etc. and conduct maintenance to reduce any degradation from
increased temperatures and/or freeze/thaw cycles.
Implement regular monitoring and maintenance of potholes; Track thawing with sensors.
No S-1D-01 For landscaping, use drought-tolerant plants or xeriscaping.Plant more drought-tolerant options (e.g., succulents); Apply mulch around plants; Incorporate hardscaping (e.g., rocks).
Yes S-1D-04 Install water storage to retain rainfall on the land for use to meet
agricultural and irrigation needs. Convert low spots that are currently in crop production but prone to flooding / washout into water storage areas.
No S-1D-05 Incorporate water-efficient practices/technology into the waste
management facility to account for drought conditions.Use greywater for cleaning; Install rainwater harvesting systems; Use alternative water sources (e.g., reclaimed water).
No S-1D-06 Ensure water infrastructure can withstand drought conditions.Build infrastructure needed for aquifer storage and recovery; Diversify sources of water supply.
No S-1D-07 Use technologies and strategies that recycle water for water
management systems to account for drought conditions.
Establish systems to recycle water and use reclaimed water; Plumb buildings for greywater separation and reuse; Install wastewater
treatment technology (e.g., a Living Machine) to recycle wastewater; Install greywater purification and reuse systems; Develop a closed-loop
system.
No S-1D-08 Install water-saving technologies indoors to account for drought
conditions.Use water-efficient household appliances (e.g., low-flow toilets, showerheads, and front-loading washers); Install water meters.
No S-1D-09 Install water-saving technologies outdoors to account for drought
conditions.Install rainwater harvesting tanks; Plant native, deep-rooted, and/or drought-tolerant plants.
Appendix E:
Traffic Study
Traffic Impact Analysis
Monticello Industrial
M ONTICELLO, MINNESOTA
NOVEMBER 2025
Prepared By:
1 Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. 2
1. Introduction...................................................................................................................... 3
2. Existing Conditions .......................................................................................................... 4
3. Background Conditions Analysis ..................................................................................... 6
4. Future Conditions Analysis - Scenario 1 ........................................................................ 12
5. Future Conditions Analysis - Scenario 2 ........................................................................ 17
6. Turn Lane Warrant Analysis .......................................................................................... 24
7. Conclusion and Recommendations ............................................................................... 25
8. Appendix ....................................................................................................................... 29
Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
2
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3-1 : Level of Service Grading Descriptions .......................................................................7
Table 3-2: Level of Service Grading Criteria ................................................................................7
Table 3-3: Existing Year (2025) Level of Service .........................................................................8
Table 3-4: Opening Year (2030) No-Build Level of Service .........................................................9
Table 3-5: Design Year (2045) No-Build Level of Service..........................................................11
Table 4-1: Trip Generation – Scenario 1 ...................................................................................12
Table 4-2: Opening Year (2030) Build Scenario 1 Level of Service ...........................................14
Table 4-3: Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 1 Level of Service .............................................16
Table 5-1: Site-Generated Traffic Projections – Scenario 2 .......................................................17
Table 5-2: Opening Year (2030) Build Scenario 2 Level of Service ...........................................19
Table 5-3: Opening Year (2030) Build Scenario 2 Mitigated Level of Service ............................20
Table 5-4: Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 2 Level of Service .............................................21
Table 5-5: Mitigated Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 2 Level of Service ..............................23
Table 6-1: Turn Lane Warrant Analysis Summary .....................................................................24
3 Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
1. INTRODUCTION
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., (Kimley-Horn) was retained to prepare a Traffic Impact Analysis for a
proposed industrial development in Monticello, MN, as the site undergoes the Alternative Urban Areawide
Review (AUAR) process. The existing site is currently not zoned and will need to be annexed by the city of
Monticello. An aerial view of the study location and surrounding roadway network is presented in Exhibit
1. All exhibits for this report are included in the appendix.
Two development scenarios are included in the AUAR. Scenario 1 consists of a 3 million square-foot
Technology Park while Scenario 2 consists of a 5 million square-foot Industrial Park. As part of this study,
the existing roadway network was analyzed to determine the current operations at the study intersections.
In order to assess the potential impact of the development scenarios on the area roadway network,
site-generated trips were established and added to the background traffic volumes. Future traffic conditions
were evaluated for the approximate Opening Year of the proposed development (2030) and a long term
“Design Year” (2045).
This report presents and documents data collection, summarizes the evaluation of existing and projected
future traffic conditions on the surrounding roadways, and identifies recommendations to address the
potential impact of site-generated traffic on the adjacent roadway network for Scenario 1 and Scenario 2.
1.1 Report Purpose and Objectives
The purpose of this study is to address traffic and transportation impacts of the proposed development on
surrounding streets and intersections. This traffic impact study was prepared based on criteria set forth by
the AUAR guidelines. The following specific information, per AUAR recommended content, should be
provided:
• A description and map of the existing and proposed roadway system, including state, regional, and
local roads to be affected by the development of the AUAR area. This information should include
existing and proposed roadway capacities and existing and projected background (i.e. without the
AUAR development) traffic volumes;
• Trip generation data – trip generation rates and trip totals – for each major development scenario
broken down by land use zones and/or other relevant subdivisions of the area. The projected
distributions onto the roadway system must be included;
• Analysis of impacts of the traffic generated by the AUAR area on the roadway system, including:
comparison of peak period total flows to capacities and analysis of Level of Service and delay times
at critical points (if any);
• A discussion of structural and non-structural improvements and traffic management measures that
are proposed to mitigate problems.
Note: in the above analyses the geographical scope must extend outward as far as the traffic to be
generated would have a significant effect on the roadway system and traffic measurements and projections
should include peak days and peak hours, or other appropriate measures related to identifying congestion
problems, as well as ADTs (average daily traffic).
Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
4
2. EXISTING CONDITIONS
Kimley-Horn conducted a review of the AUAR area including existing land uses in the surrounding area,
the adjacent street system, current traffic volumes and operating conditions, lane configurations and traffic
controls at nearby intersections, and other key roadway characteristics. This section of the report details
information on the existing conditions. An aerial view of the existing conditions and lane movements are
shown in Exhibit 2.
2.1 Area Land Uses & Connectivity
The land uses of the site and the surrounding area are primarily agricultural, with some residential land
north of 85th Street. The AUAR area is located in Wright County, just south of the City of Monticello’s current
boundary. Minnesota State Highway 25 (MN 25) connects the area to a full interchange with Interstate 94
(I-94) approximately 1.7 miles north of the site. I-94 provides regional east-west connectivity to major
population centers such as the Twin Cities to the east and Saint Cloud to the west.
2.2 Existing Roadway Characteristics
The following provides a description of the public roadways within the AUAR area:
85th Street NE (or CR 106 west of MN 25) is an east-west roadway that serves as the northern boundary
of the AUAR area. It is a two-lane undivided roadway with dedicated right- and left-turn lanes at the
intersection with MN 25. 85th Street NE is classified as a major collector, according to the Monticello 2040
Vision + Plan. According to the MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application, the existing Annual Average Daily
Traffic (AADT) along 85th Street is approximately 1,797 vehicles per day (vpd) west of MN 25, as of 2024.
No AADT data is available east of MN 25. The posted speed limit is 45 mph west of MN 25. There is no
posted speed limit east of MN 25, and therefore the statutory speed limit is 55 mph.
Minnesota State Highway 25 (MN 25) is a generally north-south state highway that runs west of the AUAR
area. It is a two-lane undivided roadway about 1000’ south of 85th Street, where it transitions to a four-lane
divided roadway to the north. There are dedicated left and right turn lanes at the intersections with 85th
street NE and CSAH 37. MN 25 is classified as Principal Arterial - other, according to the Monticello 2040
Vision + Plan. According to the MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application, the existing Annual Average Daily
Traffic (AADT) along MN 25 is approximately 15,009 vehicles per day (vpd) north of 85th Street, as of 2024.
The posted speed limit is 60 mph.
Edmonson Avenue NE (CR 117) is a north-south roadway that serves as the eastern boundary of the
AUAR area. It is a two-lane undivided roadway that connects to the AUAR site via 85th Street NE. There
are no existing turn lanes along this road. Edmonson Avenue NE is classified as a minor collector according
to the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan. Edmonson Avenue NE has an AADT of 1,808 vpd north of CSAH 37
and 1,930 vpd north of 85th Street NE. The posted speed limit is 55 mph.
CSAH 37 is an east-west County State Aid Highway (CSAH) located south of the AUAR area. It is a two-
lane undivided roadway. CSAH 37 is classified as a major collector south of the AUAR area according to
page 99 of the 2040 Monticello Comprehensive Plan. According to the MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application,
the road has an AADT of approximately 4,873 vpd west of Edmonson Avenue as of 2024. The posted
speed limit is 55 mph.
Davidson Avenue NE is a north-south roadway that serves as the western boundary of the AUAR area. It
is a two-lane undivided local roadway with no turn lanes. There is no AADT data available for Davidson
5 Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
Avenue NE and there is no posted speed limit. The speed limit was assumed to be 45 mph for analysis
purposes.
School Boulevard is a three-lane undivided east-west roadway with one travel lane in each direction and
a shared left turn lane. School Boulevard is classified as a minor arterial, according to the Monticello 2040
Plan. MnDOT reports an AADT of 5,994 west of Edmonson Avenue and 6,464 west of Fenning Avenue, as
of 2024. The posted speed limit is 40 mph, with a school speed limit of 30 mph enforced when children are
present.
Fallon Avenue is a two-lane undivided north-south roadway. Fallon Avenue is classified as a local road
according to the Monticello 2040 Plan. MnDOT reports an AADT of 3,847 north of School Boulevard, as of
2024. The posted speed limit is 30 mph.
The existing geometry and intersection control for the intersections in the study area that will be included
in this analysis are shown in Exhibit 2.
2.4 Traffic Count Data
Turning movement count data was collected during the AM peak period (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and the PM
peak period (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM). Data was collected at each study intersection, as listed below.
• MN 25 & 85th Street NE (Signal)
• Edmonson Avenue NE & 85th Street NE (Side-Street Stop)
• MN 25 & County Road 37 (Signal/Planned Roundabout)
• County Road 37 & Davidson Avenue (Side-Street Stop)
• County Road 37 & Edmonson Avenue (Side-Street Stop)
• School Boulevard & Fallon Avenue (All-Way Stop/Planned Roundabout)
Turning movement counts at the intersections of MN 25 & 85th Street NE and Edmonson Avenue & 85th
Street NE were conducted on Thursday, July 11, 2024. Turning movement counts at MN 25 & County Road
37, County Road 37 & Davidson Avenue, and County Road 37 & Edmonson Drive were conducted on
Wednesday, July 16, 2025. Traffic Volumes for MN 25 & Davidson Avenue were determined using the
traffic counts from surrounding intersections. Count data from 2024 was grown with one year of background
growth to conform with the newer traffic data. TMC data for School Boulevard & Fallon Avenue was
collected when schools were in session on Tuesday, April 8, 2025.
The traffic count data indicates that peak traffic volumes occur within the study area from 7:00 to 8:00 AM
and 4:00 to 5:00 PM on a typical weekday. Existing peak hour traffic volumes are summarized on Exhibit
3. A summary of the traffic count data is provided in the appendix.
2.3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure
There is currently a shared use path located north of 85th Street NE but no pedestrian or bicycle facilities
within the AUAR Area. The intersection of MN 25 & 85th Street NE has pedestrian crosswalks at the north
and west legs of the intersection.
Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
6
3. BACKGROUND CONDITIONS ANALYSIS
Analysis of the future background conditions was carried out to determine the baseline operating conditions
for the Opening Year (2030) and Design Year (2045) of the proposed AUAR developments. A review of
future traffic growth and planned geometric changes for the study roadways was conducted for the analysis.
3.1 Future Roadway Improvements
A corridor study for Highway 25 between Buffalo and Monticello was completed in 2022. The study identified
multiple short-term and long-term improvements to the roadway within the study area. Some of the short
term improvements identified by this corridor study are planned for construction in 2026. The most notable
of these improvements is the installation of a single-lane roundabout at MN 25 & CSAH 37.
The corridor study also identified the potential removal of access to Davidson Avenue as a potential
improvement. Additionally, a new full-access intersection along MN 25 south of the existing Davidson
Avenue intersection was identified as a long-term improvement. The Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan
identifies a future minor collector roadway passing through the southern portion of the site and connecting
from MN 25 to Edmonson Avenue.
For the sake of analysis, a roundabout at MN 25 & CSAH 37 was assumed to be in place by the Opening
Year (2030). Removal of access from Davidson Avenue and the addition of a new full-access intersection
along MN 25 were assumed under the Opening Year (2030) conditions. For this analysis, through traffic
was not included at this potential roadway connection.
The City of Monticello is preliminarily planning to construct a roundabout at the intersection of School
Boulevard & Fallon Avenue. Because there is no clear timeline for this improvement, it was assumed that
this would be a long term project and would be completed by 2045.
3.2 Future Background Growth
The Wright County Long Range Transportation Plan gives future traffic projections in a broad range of
values for each roadway and therefore it is difficult to determine the level of growth from projected AADT
growth. Furthermore, review of historical AADT data revealed no clear trends in traffic patterns for the
adjacent roadways. Instead, the background growth rate was calculated to align with the City of Monticello’s
anticipated population growth. With a 2019 population of about 13,747 people, the city is anticipated to
grow to a population of 19,738 by 2045, based on the preferred growth scenario outlined in the Monticello
2040 Vision + Plan. This represents about a 1.7% annual growth rate.
A nearby residential development, Haven Ridge, is located east of Fallon Avenue near the study area. This
development includes 59 single-family residences and is currently under construction. Traffic to/from this
development were applied to the School Boulevard & Fallon Avenue intersection to account for
development traffic.
The Future (2030) No-Build traffic projections are presented in Exhibit 4. The Future (2045) No-Build traffic
projections are presented in Exhibit 5.
7 Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
3.3 Existing (2025) Capacity Analysis
Synchro/SimTraffic 12th edition capacity software was used to evaluate existing operational conditions at
the signalized and stop-controlled intersections. Operations of the future roundabout at MN 25 & CSAH 37
were evaluated using roundabout analysis software Rodel.
The capacity of an intersection quantifies its ability to accommodate traffic volumes and is expressed in
terms of level of service (LOS), measured in average delay per vehicle. LOS grades range from A to F, with
LOS A as the highest (best traffic flow and least delay), LOS E as saturated or at-capacity conditions, and
LOS F as the lowest (oversaturated conditions).
The LOS grades shown below, which are provided in the Transportation Research Board’s Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM), quantify and categorize the driver’s discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and
travel times experienced as a result of intersection control and the resulting traffic queuing. A detailed
description of each LOS rating can be found in Table 3-1.
Table 3-1 : Level of Service Grading Descriptions
Level of Service Description1
A Minimal control delay; traffic operates at primarily free-flow conditions; unimpeded movement within
traffic stream.
B Minor control delay at signalized intersections; traffic operates at a fairly unimpeded level with slightly
restricted movement within traffic stream.
C Moderate control delay; movement within traffic stream more restricted than at LOS B; formation of
queues contributes to lower average travel speeds.
D Considerable control delay that may be substantially increased by small increases in flow; average
travel speeds continue to decrease.
E High control delay; average travel speed no more than 33 percent of free flow speed.
F Extremely high control delay; extensive queuing and high volumes create exceedingly restricted traffic
flow.
1Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition.
The range of control delay for each rating (as detailed in the HCM) is shown in Table 3-2. HCM considers
roundabouts to be unsignalized intersections when determining LOS.
Table 3-2: Level of Service Grading Criteria
Level of Service1 Average Control Delay (s/veh) at:
Unsignalized Intersections Signalized Intersections
A 0 – 10 0 – 10
B > 10 – 15 > 10 – 20
C > 15 – 25 > 20 – 35
D > 25 – 35 > 35 – 55
E > 35 – 50 > 55 – 80
F2 > 50 > 80
1Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition
2All movements with a Volume to Capacity (v/c) ratio greater than 1 receive a rating of LOS F.
For the purposes of this study, the worst individual movement delay was reported as the overall intersection
delay at side street stop control intersections. The results of capacity analysis for existing conditions are
Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
8
summarized in Table 3-3. The results are based on SimTraffic within Synchro, 12th Edition. Copies of the
SimTraffic reports are provided in the appendix.
Based on the analysis, all study intersections operate at LOS B or better during the AM and PM peak hours.
Under Existing Year (2025) Conditions, some side street movements at MN 25 & 85th Street NE are
anticipated to operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour. The long cycle lengths employed during the PM
peak hour ensure very low levels of delay for through movements along MN 25, resulting in overall low
delays at the intersection. LOS E for side street turning movements is not an issue in itself and the
intersection operates with very low delays overall; therefore, no mitigation is recommended. The 95th
percentile queues were reviewed at the study intersections. All 95th percentile queues are anticipated to be
accommodated within their respective storage bays.
Table 3-3: Existing Year (2025) Level of Service
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Left Through Right Overall1 Left Through Right Overall1
MN 25 &
85th Street Signal
EB C (33) C (25) A (3)
A (8)
E (60) D (53) A (2)
A (9) WB C (30) C (31) A (3) E (55) D (44) A (3)
NB A (4) A (3) A (0) A (4) A (3) A (1)
SB A (6) A (8) A (1) A (7) A (8) A (2)
Edmonson
Avenue &
85th Street
Side
Street
Stop
EB A (3) A (7) A (1)
A (8)
A (4) A (5) A (2)
A (9) WB A (4) A (8) A (1) A (4) A (9) A (3)
NB A (0) A (1) A (0) A (1) A (1) A (0)
SB A (0) A (0) A (0) A (1) A (1) A (0)
MN 25 &
CSAH 37 Signal
EB B (10) B (13) A (4)
B (10)
B (18) B (19) A (5)
B (12) WB B (13) B (13) A (7) B (17) B (19) A (5)
NB B (16) A (9) A (2) C (21) B (12) A (3)
SB C (21) B (10) A (4) C (26) B (13) A (5)
CSAH 37 &
Davidson
Avenue
Side
Street
Stop
EB A (6) A (5) -
A (6)
A (3) A (3) -
A (4) WB - A (2) A (1) - A (2) A (2)
NB - - - - - -
SB A (3) A (0) A (2) A (4) A (0) A (3)
CSAH 37 &
Edmonson Avenue
Side
Street Stop
EB A (1) A (2) A (2)
B (11)
A (2) A (3) A (2)
B (13) WB A (1) A (1) A (1) A (1) A (1) A (0)
NB A (5) B (11) A (3) A (9) B (13) A (4)
SB A (3) A (5) A (3) A (5) A (5) A (3)
MN 25 &
Davidson
Avenue
Side
Street
Stop
EB - - -
A (3)
- - -
A (4) WB A (4) A (0) A (3) B (15) - A (4)
NB - A (1) A (0) - A (1) A (0)
SB A (1) A (1) - A (3) A (1) -
9 Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Left Through Right Overall1 Left Through Right Overall1
School
Boulevard &
Fallon
Avenue
All-Way
Stop
EB A (7) B (12) A (7)
A (9)
A (6) B (11) A (6)
A (9) WB A (7) B (11) A (6) A (7) B (12) A (7)
NB A (8) A (9) A (6) A (7) A (8) A (4)
SB A (7) A (8) A (5) A (8) A (9) A (5)
1Worst movement delay reported in place of overall delay at side street stop intersections. Excludes minor movements (<5 vph).
3.4 Opening Year (2030) No-Build Capacity Analysis
The Opening Year (2030) No-Build Condition analysis was completed to develop an understanding of the
baseline operating conditions for the study area in the opening year without the addition of the development
traffic. Capacity results for the Opening Year (2030) No-Build conditions are provided in Table 3-4.
Roundabout analysis software Rodel was used to evaluate the traffic operations at the planned MN 25 &
CSAH 37 roundabout. SimTraffic and Rodel analysis reports are provided in the appendix.
Under Opening Year (2030) No-Build conditions, all intersections are anticipated to continue operating at
LOS C or better and all individual movements/approaches at LOS E or better. Delays are generally
anticipated to see very minor changes compared to the Existing (2025) conditions and all intersections are
expected to operate acceptably. The 95th percentile queue lengths were reviewed, and all queues are
anticipated to remain within their respective storage bays.
Table 3-4: Opening Year (2030) No-Build Level of Service
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Left Through Right Overall1 Left Through Right Overall1
MN 25 &
85th Street Signal
EB C (33) C (33) A (3)
A (8)
E (64) E (59) A (3)
A (10) WB C (27) C (28) A (3) D (51) D (51) A (3)
NB A (8) A (3) A (0) A (5) A (3) A (1)
SB A (7) A (9) A (1) A (7) A (8) A (2)
Edmonson
Avenue &
85th Street
Side
Street
Stop
EB A (3) A (7) A (2)
A (8)
A (5) A (6) A (2)
A (9) WB A (3) A (8) A (1) A (5) A (9) A (2)
NB A (0) A (1) A (0) A (1) A (1) A (0)
SB A (0) A (0) A (0) A (1) A (1) A (0)
MN 25 &
CSAH 37
Round-
about
EB A (5)
A (5)
A (5)
A (7) WB A (4) A (6)
NB A (5) A (9)
SB A (5) A (7)
CSAH 37 &
Davidson
Avenue
Side
Street
Stop
EB A (4) A (5) -
A (5)
A (4) A (3) -
A (5) WB - A (2) A (2) - A (2) A (1)
NB - - - - - -
SB A (4) A (0) A (1) A (5) A (0) A (1)
Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
10
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Left Through Right Overall1 Left Through Right Overall1
CSAH 37 &
Edmonson
Avenue
Side
Street
Stop
EB A (2) A (2) A (2)
B (12)
A (3) A (3) A (2)
B (14) WB A (1) A (1) A (0) A (2) A (1) A (0)
NB A (6) B (12) A (3) A (10) B (14) A (5)
SB A (6) A (6) A (2) A (9) A (5) A (4)
School
Boulevard
& Fallon
Avenue
All-Way
Stop
EB A (7) B (14) A (8)
A (9)
A (7) B (12) A (7)
A (10) WB A (8) B (11) A (6) A (8) B (12) A (7)
NB A (9) A (10) A (7) A (8) A (8) A (5)
SB A (8) A (10) A (6) A (8) A (10) A (6)
1Worst movement delay reported in place of overall delay at side street stop intersections. Excludes minor movements (<5 vph).
3 .5 Design Year (2045) No-Build Capacity Analysis
The Design Year (2045) No-Build Condition analysis was completed to develop an understanding of the
baseline operating conditions for the study area in the long-term without the addition of the development
traffic. Existing geometry and intersection control was assumed for this analysis, with optimized signal
timings. Capacity results for the Design Year (2045) No-Build conditions are provided in Table 3-5.
SimTraffic analysis reports are included in the appendix.
Under Design Year (2045) No-Build conditions, all intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS D or
better and all movements at LOS E or better. Compared to the Opening Year (2030) No-Build conditions,
delays are anticipated to increase by a few seconds per vehicle at some study area intersections.
All other 95th percentile queues are anticipated to remain within their respective storage bays. The
northbound approach at the MN 25 & CSAH 37 roundabout is anticipated to see longer queues during the
PM peak (23 vehicle lengths, or about 575’), but these queues are not expected to cause any significant
issues downstream.
11 Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
Table 3-5: Design Year (2045) No-Build Level of Service
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Left Through Right Overall Left Through Right Overall
MN 25 &
85th Street Signal
EB C (32) C (28) A (3)
A (10)
E (68) D (48) A (3)
B (11) WB C (30) C (29) A (3) E (58) D (47) A (3)
NB A (9) A (4) A (1) A (10) A (4) A (1)
SB A (7) B (12) A (2) A (8) B (11) A (2)
Edmonson
Avenue &
85th Street
Side
Street
Stop
EB A (3) A (7) A (2)
A (8)
A (5) A (6) A (3)
A (10) WB A (3) A (8) A (2) A (6) A (10) A (3)
NB A (1) A (1) A (0) A (1) A (2) A (0)
SB A (1) A (0) A (0) A (1) A (1) A (1)
MN 25 &
CSAH 37
Round-
about
EB A (5)
A (6)
A (6)
C (16) WB A (5) A (7)
NB A (6) C (25)
SB A (6) B (11)
CSAH 37 &
Davidson
Avenue
Side
Street
Stop
EB A (2) A (1) -
A (2)
A (2) A (1) -
A (2) WB - A (2) A (2) - A (2) A (2)
NB - - - - - -
SB A (5) - A (2) A (6) - A (3)
CSAH 37 &
Edmonson
Avenue
Side
Street
Stop
EB A (2) A (2) A (2)
B (12)
A (3) A (4) A (2)
C (18) WB A (1) A (1) A (0) A (3) A (2) A (0)
NB A (8) B (12) A (4) B (14) C (18) A (9)
SB A (8) A (6) A (4) B (11) A (6) A (5)
MN 25 &
Future
Roadway
Side
Street
Stop
EB - - -
C (22)
- - -
D (32) WB C (22) - A (4) D (32) - A (6)
NB - A (2) A (1) - A (2) A (0)
SB A (7) A (6) - A (9) A (6) -
School
Boulevard
& Fallon Avenue
Round-
about
EB A (9)
A (7)
A (10)
A (8) WB A (8) A (10)
NB A (7) A (7)
SB A (7) A (9)
1Worst movement delay reported in place of overall delay at side street stop intersections. Excludes minor movements (<5 vph).
Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
12
4. FUTURE CONDITIONS ANALYSIS - SCENARIO 1
This section of the report outlines the proposed development scenario, summarizes site-specific traffic
characteristics, and develops future traffic projections for Scenario 1. The project location is shown in
Exhibit 1.
4 .1 Development Characteristics and Site Access
The Scenario 1 development consists of 3,000,000 square feet of technology park. The studied opening
year of the full development is 2030. Two site access points were assumed: one along 85th Street NE
(“North Access”), and the other along Edmonson Avenue (“East Access”). The exact location of access
points will be determined when a site specific development plan is developed. No turn lanes were assumed
at the access points for the capacity analysis.
4.2 Trip Generation
Proposed development traffic was determined based on data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers’
(ITE) Trip Generation, 11th Edition. The manual provides peak hour trips rates/equations, inbound-outbound
percentages that can be attributed to the proposed site. Based on a review of industrial land uses provided
in the manual, LUC 160 (Data Center) was determined to be the most appropriate fit for the proposed
Scenario 1.
Table 4-1 provides a summary of trip generation for development Scenario 1. Based on the trip generation
calculation, the proposed Scenario 1 development is anticipated to generate 2,970 daily trips, including 330
total trips during the AM Peak Hour (182 entering and 148 exiting), and 270 total trips during the PM Peak
Hour (81 entering, 189 exiting). Trip generation of trucks is anticipated to be negligible, and all trips are
considered to be passenger vehicle trips.
Table 4-1: Trip Generation – Scenario 1
Land Use Description Intensity /
Units Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Technology Park – ITE LUC 160 3,000 kSF 2,970 182 148 330 81 189 270
4.3 Directional Distribution
The estimated distribution of site-generated traffic on the surrounding roadway network was developed
based on a review of the roadway network, area development pattern, and access to the proposed
development. The anticipated directional distribution of passenger vehicle site traffic is summarized below.
• 35% to/from the north on MN 25
• 30% to/from the east on School Boulevard
• 20% to/from the east on CSAH 37
• 15% to/from the south on MN 25
13 Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
Note that the majority of the site traffic is anticipated to come from the east along I-94, but such trips could
use many different routes to access the site, resulting in a relatively even spread of site traffic throughout
the roadway network. The Scenario 1 site trip distribution is shown in Exhibit 6.
The site traffic assignment, representing traffic volumes associated with the proposed development at the
study intersections, is a function of the estimated trip generation (Table 4-1) and the directional distribution
(Exhibit 6). The site trip assignment is shown in Exhibit 8.
Opening Year (2030) Build Scenario 1 traffic projections, shown on Exhibit 13, were developed by adding
site-generated traffic for the Technology Center (Exhibit 7) to the Opening Year (2030) No-Build volumes
(Exhibit 4). Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 1 traffic projections, shown on Exhibit 15, were developed
by adding site-generated traffic for the Technology Center (Exhibit 7) to the Design Year (2045) No-Build
volumes (Exhibit 5).
4.4 Future Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure
The area surrounding the site is largely rural with few pedestrian and bicycle facilities. As the surrounding
area develops further, pedestrian connectivity should be a priority.
4.5 Opening Year (2030) Build Scenario 1 Capacity Analysis
The results of the analysis for the Opening Year (2030) Build Scenario 1 are shown in Table 4-2. Consistent
with the existing conditions analysis, the results are based on Synchro/SimTraffic reports. Copies of the
capacity analysis reports are provided in the appendix.
All study intersections and site accesses are anticipated to operate at LOS A or B during the AM and PM
peak hours. Additionally, all movements are anticipated to continue operating at LOS E or better. Overall,
the study intersections are anticipated to see very little change in delay as a result of the Scenario 1 Build
conditions in the Opening Year (2030). The 95th percentile queueing results were reviewed, and all queues
are anticipated to remain within their respective storage bays.
Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
14
Table 4-2: Opening Year (2030) Build Scenario 1 Level of Service
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Left Through Right Overall Left Through Right Overall
MN 25 &
85th Street Signal
EB C (31) C (22) A (3)
A (9)
E (69) D (44) A (3)
B (10) WB C (31) C (25) A (3) E (57) D (52) A (3)
NB A (1) A (4) A (1) A (6) A (4) A (1)
SB A (8) A (10) A (1) A (6) A (9) A (2)
Edmonson
Avenue &
85th Street
Side
Street
Stop
EB A (4) A (9) A (2)
A (9)
A (5) A (8) A (3)
A (10) WB A (4) A (9) A (3) A (5) A (10) A (3)
NB A (1) A (1) A (0) A (1) A (1) A (0)
SB A (0) A (1) A (0) A (1) A (1) A (0)
MN 25 &
CSAH 37
Round-
about
EB A (5)
A (5)
A (5)
A (8) WB A (5) A (6)
NB A (5) A (10)
SB A (5) A (7)
CSAH 37 &
Davidson
Avenue
Side
Street
Stop
EB A (5) A (5) -
A (5)
A (5) A (3) -
A (5) WB - A (2) A (1) - A (2) A (2)
NB - - - - - -
SB A (4) A (0) A (2) A (5) A (0) A (1)
CSAH 37 &
Edmonson
Avenue
Side
Street
Stop
EB A (2) A (3) A (2)
B (12)
A (3) A (3) A (2)
B (15) WB A (1) A (1) A (0) A (2) A (1) A (0)
NB A (5) B (12) A (3) B (10) B (15) A (5)
SB A (6) A (7) A (3) A (10) A (6) A (5)
85th Street
& North Access
Side
Street Stop
EB - A (2) A (1)
A (5)
- A (1) A (1)
A (6) WB A (3) A (3) - A (3) A (3) -
NB A (5) - A (3) A (6) - A (3)
SB - - - - - -
Edmonson
Avenue &
East
Access
Side
Street
Stop
EB A (5) - A (3)
A (5)
A (6) - A (3)
A (6) WB - - - - - -
NB A (1) A (1) - A (1) A (1) -
SB - A (1) A (0) - A (1) A (0)
School
Boulevard
& Fallon
Avenue
All-Way
Stop
EB A (7) B (15) A (9)
B (11)
A (8) B (13) A (8)
B (10) WB A (9) B (12) A (7) A (8) B (13) A (8)
NB B (11) B (11) A (8) A (8) A (9) A (6)
SB A (8) A (10) A (6) A (8) B (10) A (6)
1Worst movement delay reported in place of overall delay at side street stop intersections. Excludes minor movements (<5 vph).
15 Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
4.6 Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 1 Capacity Analysis
Capacity analysis results for the Design Year (2045) Scenario 1 conditions are provided in Table 4-3.
Consistent with the existing conditions analysis, the results are based on Synchro/SimTraffic reports.
Copies of the capacity analysis reports are provided in the appendix.
Results of the Design Year (2045) Scenario 1 conditions show that all intersections are anticipated to
operate at LOS C or better except for the proposed collector roadway connection to MN 25 which operates
at LOS E during the PM peak hour. Overall, the study area intersections are anticipated to see very little
change in delay as a result of the proposed Scenario 1 development. The 95th percentile queueing results
were reviewed, and all queues are anticipated to remain within their respective storage bays. SimTraffic
reports are included in the appendix.
Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
16
Table 4-3: Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 1 Level of Service
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Left Through Right Overall Left Through Right Overall
MN 25 &
85th Street Signal
EB C (33) C (27) A (3)
B (10)
E (67) D (47) A (3)
B (12) WB C (31) C (27) A (3) E (66) E (60) A (3)
NB A (4) A (5) A (1) B (11) A (5) A (0)
SB A (8) B (12) A (2) A (9) B (12) A (2)
Edmonson
Avenue &
85th Street
Side
Street
Stop
EB A (5) A (9) A (3)
A (9)
A (7) A (9) A (3)
B (10) WB A (5) A (9) A (3) A (6) B (10) A (5)
NB A (1) A (1) A (0) A (1) A (2) A (0)
SB A (1) A (1) A (0) A (1) A (2) A (1)
MN 25 &
CSAH 37
Round-
about
EB A (6)
A (6)
A (6)
C (18) WB A (5) A (7)
NB A (5) D (29)
SB A (7) B (12)
CSAH 37 &
Davidson
Avenue
Side
Street
Stop
EB A (2) A (1) -
A (2)
A (2) A (1) -
A (2) WB - A (2) A (2) - A (3) A (2)
NB - - - - - -
SB A (6) - A (3) A (6) - A (2)
CSAH 37 &
Edmonson
Avenue
Side
Street
Stop
EB A (3) A (3) A (1)
B (13)
A (4) A (4) A (2)
C (19) WB A (1) A (1) A (0) A (3) A (2) A (0)
NB A (9) B (13) A (4) C (16) C (19) B (11)
SB A (9) A (8) A (4) C (17) A (8) A (7)
MN 25 &
Future Roadway
Side
Street Stop
EB - - -
B (10)
- - -
E (37) WB B (10) - A (3) E (37) - A (8)
NB - A (2) A (1) - A (2) A (0)
SB A (7) A (6) - B (11) A (6) -
85th Street
& North
Access
Side
Street
Stop
EB - A (2) A (1)
A (5)
- A (2) A (1)
A (6) WB A (4) A (3) - A (3) A (3) -
NB A (5) - A (3) A (6) - A (3)
SB - - - - - -
Edmonson
Avenue &
East
Access
Side
Street
Stop
EB A (6) - A (3)
A (6)
A (6) - A (4)
A (6) WB - - - - - -
NB A (1) A (1) - A (1) A (1) -
SB - A (1) A (0) - A (1) A (0)
School
Boulevard
& Fallon
Avenue
Round-
about
EB A (9)
A (7)
A (10)
A (8) WB A (9) B (10)
NB A (8) A (7)
SB A (7) A (9)
1Worst movement delay reported in place of overall delay at side street stop intersections. Excludes minor movements (<5 vph).
17 Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
5. FUTURE CONDITIONS ANALYSIS - SCENARIO 2
This section of the report outlines the proposed development scenario, summarizes site-specific traffic
characteristics, and develops future traffic projections for Scenario 2. The project location is shown in
Exhibit 1.
5 .1 Scenario 2 Development Characteristics and Site Access
Scenario 2 is anticipated to include up to 5,000,000 sq ft of industrial park space. For this analysis, the
studied Opening Year of the full development is 2030. Three site access points were assumed: one along
85th Street NE (“North Access”), one along Edmonson Avenue (“East Access”), and one along Davidson
Avenue (“West Access”). With the Davidson Avenue connection to MN 25 being removed, it is assumed
that the West Access will be a collector roadway that connects to MN 25, as included in the City’s comp.
The exact location of the access points will be determined when a site specific development plan is
developed.
5 .2 Scenario 2 Trip Generation
Proposed development traffic was based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ (ITE) Trip
Generation, 11th Edition. The manual provides peak hour trips rates/equations, inbound-outbound
percentages, and truck percentages which were used to estimate the number of daily, peak hour, and truck
trips that can be attributed to the proposed site. Based on a review of industrial land uses provided in the
manual, Land Use Code (LUC) 130 (Industrial Park) was determined to be the most appropriate fit for the
proposed Scenario 2 development.
Table 5-1 provides a summary of trip generation for development Scenario 2. Based on the trip generation
calculation, the proposed development is anticipated to generate 16,850 total daily trips, 2,850 of which are
truck trips. During the AM Peak Hour, Scenario 2 is anticipated to generate 1,500 passenger vehicle trips
(1,287 entering and 213 exiting), and 200 truck trips (90 entering and 110 exiting). During the PM peak
hour, Scenario 2 is anticipated to generate 1,500 passenger vehicle trips (297 entering and 1,203 exiting)
and 200 truck trips (77 entering and 123 exiting).
Table 5-1: Site-Generated Traffic Projections – Scenario 2
Land Use
Description Trip Type Intensity
/ Units Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Industrial Park -
ITE LUC 130
Passenger
Vehicle
5,000
kSF
14,000 1,287 213 1,500 297 1,203 1,500
Truck 2,850 90 110 200 77 123 200
Total 16,850 1,377 323 1,700 373 1,327 1,700
5 .3 Scenario 2 Directional Distribution
Due to the addition of a west access point along Davidson Avenue, trip distribution differs from Scenario 1.
Additionally, passenger vehicle traffic and truck traffic are expected to exhibit different global distributions.
Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
18
Thus, traffic distribution for passenger vehicles and trucks were determined individually, as shown in
Exhibit 8 and Exhibit 10, respectively.
Passenger vehicle site trips were determined by applying trip generation (Table 5-1) to passenger vehicle
distribution (Exhibit 8). Passenger vehicle site trips are shown in Exhibit 9. Truck site trips were determined
by applying trip generation (Table 5-1) to truck distribution (Exhibit 10). Truck site trips are shown in Exhibit
11. The total Scenario 2 site trips are presented in Exhibit 12.
Opening Year (2030) Build Scenario 2 traffic projections, shown on Exhibit 14, were developed by adding
total site-generated traffic for the Industrial Park (Exhibit 12) to the Opening Year (2030) No-Build volumes
(Exhibit 4). Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 2 traffic projections, shown on Exhibit 16, were developed
by adding total site-generated traffic for the Industrial Park (Exhibit 12) to the Design Year (2045) No-Build
volumes (Exhibit 5).
5 .4 Scenario 2 Future Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure
The area surrounding the site is largely rural with few pedestrian and bicycle facilities. As the surrounding
area develops further, pedestrian connectivity should be a priority.
5.5 Opening Year (2030) Build Scenario 2 Capacity Analysis
The results of the analysis for the Opening Year (2030) Build Scenario 2 are shown in Table 5-2. Consistent
with the existing conditions analysis, the results are based on Synchro 12/SimTraffic. Copies of the capacity
analysis reports are provided in the appendix. Adjustments were made to the signal timings to account for
the added site traffic to the development site. Heavy vehicle volumes were included in the analysis for all
Scenario 2 conditions.
Based on the analysis in the Opening Year (2030) Build Scenario 2, all intersections, apart from MN 25 &
Davidson Avenue, are expected to operate at LOS D or better in the AM and PM peak hours. The
westbound left and right turn movements at MN 25 and Davidson Avenue are expected to operate at LOS
F during the PM peak hour. This is due to high traffic in the northbound and southbound directions on MN
25. Because this is an interim operating condition, mitigation is not recommended at Davidson Avenue
since the connection to MN 25 is planned to be removed in the near future.
The intersection of School Boulevard & Fallon Avenue is anticipated to operate at LOS D during the AM
peak hour with multiple movements operating at LOS E or F. Severe queueing is anticipated to occur during
the AM peak hour, with westbound through/right turn queues exceeding 700’. Overall, the intersection is
operating near capacity, and mitigation is recommended to reduce delays and queueing. A single lane
roundabout is recommended at the intersection to improve traffic operations and safety conditions at the
intersection.
All other individual intersection movements are anticipated to operate at LOS E or better. The 95th percentile
queueing results were reviewed, and all queues are anticipated to remain within their respective storage
bays. Traffic analysis reports are included in Appendix I.
19 Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
Table 5-2: Opening Year (2030) Build Scenario 2 Level of Service
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Left Through Right Overall Left Through Right Overall
MN 25 &
85th Street Signal
EB C (33) C (29) A (2)
B (14)
E (68) D (54) A (3)
B (13) WB C (34) C (31) A (5) E (64) D (52) A (7)
NB A (6) A (8) A (2) A (7) A (6) A (1)
SB B (17) B (16) A (3) B (13) B (11) A (2)
Edmonson
Avenue &
85th Street
Side
Street
Stop
EB A (8) B (12) A (6)
B (13)
B (13) C (17) A (9)
C (17) WB A (9) B (13) A (7) B (12) B (14) A (7)
NB A (1) A (2) A (0) A (3) A (4) A (1)
SB A (1) A (3) A (1) A (2) A (2) A (0)
MN 25 &
CSAH 37
Round-
about
EB A (5)
A (6)
A (6)
A (9) WB A (5) A (7)
NB A (7) B (11)
SB A (6) A (9)
CSAH 37 &
Davidson
Avenue
Side
Street
Stop
EB A (2) A (1) -
A (3)
A (2) A (2) -
A (4) WB - A (4) A (2) - A (3) A (2)
NB - - - - - -
SB A (8) A (1) A (4) A (9) A (0) A (7)
CSAH 37 &
Edmonson
Avenue
Side
Street
Stop
EB A (4) A (3) A (2)
B (14)
A (4) A (4) A (3)
D (25) WB A (2) A (2) A (1) A (3) A (2) A (1)
NB A (9) B (14) A (4) B (15) C (21) B (11)
SB A (9) A (8) A (5) D (25) B (10) C (17)
MN 25 &
Future
Roadway (West
Access)
Side
Street Stop
EB - - -
C (20)
- - -
F (87) WB C (20) A (0) A (8) F (87) - F (69)
NB - A (2) A (0) - A (4) A (1)
SB A (5) A (1) - A (7) A (1) -
85th Street
& North
Access
Side
Street
Stop
EB - A (6) A (4)
C (18)
- A (4) A (2)
C (18) WB A (9) A (7) - A (4) A (4) -
NB C (18) - B (11) C (18) - B (15)
SB - - - - - -
Edmonson
Avenue &
East
Access
Side
Street
Stop
EB B (10) - A (4)
B (10)
B (15) - B (12)
B (15) WB - - - - - -
NB A (5) A (5) - A (2) A (3) -
SB - A (5) A (1) - A (2) A (0)
School
Boulevard
& Fallon Avenue
All-Way
Stop
EB A (9) E (44) E (35)
D (35)
A (7) D (29) D (26)
C (18) WB F (56) D (29) C (21) A (9) C (17) B (11)
NB C (19) C (19) B (14) C (20) C (19) C (16)
SB B (11) B (13) A (10) B (12) B (14) A (9)
1Worst movement delay reported in place of overall delay at side street stop intersections. Excludes minor movements (<5 vph).
Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
20
5.6 Mitigated Opening Year (2030) Build Scenario 2 Capacity Analysis
An Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2 Mitigated conditions capacity analysis was conducted to measure the
effectiveness of the proposed mitigation at the intersection of School Boulevard & Fallon Avenue. This
analysis focused on a single-lane roundabout mitigation to provide consistency along the School Boulevard
corridor which has multiple roundabouts.
Results of the capacity analysis are given below in Table 5-3. The analysis indicates that installation of a
roundabout, all approaches at the intersection operate at LOS B or better during the AM and PM peak
hours. All 95th percentile queues are less than 200’. No further mitigation is required.
Table 5-3: Opening Year (2030) Build Scenario 2 Mitigated Level of Service
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Left Through Right Overall Left Through Right Overall
School
Boulevard
& Fallon
Avenue
Round-
about
EB A (9)
A (10)
A (10)
A (8) WB B (14) A (9)
NB A (7) A (10)
SB A (8) A (8)
5.7 Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 2 Capacity Analysis
Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 conditions analysis was conducted to determine the long-term effects of the
proposed Scenario 2 development and determine any resultant mitigation needs at the study intersections.
For the analysis, modifications were made to the signal timings to account for the traffic associated with the
proposed Scenario 2 development. A northbound left turn lane was assumed at School Boulevard & Fallon
Avenue (though a traffic signal was not assumed), in line with the Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 1
conditions analysis. Results of the capacity analysis for the Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 2 conditions
are provided in Table 5-4.
The results of the capacity analysis show the system has increased delay throughout the roadway network
with several movements approaching or at capacity. The intersection of MN 25 & Proposed Collector is
expected to operate at LOS F with the westbound left and right turn movement expected to see more than
100 seconds of delay per vehicle in the PM peak hour. Based on this, separate left and right turn lanes are
expected to be required at a minimum.
The northbound approach at MN 25 & CSAH 37 is anticipated to operate at LOS E during the PM peak
hour with 95th percentile queues in excess of 1,000’. A right-turn bypass should be considered for the
roundabout’s northbound approach to reduce delays and queueing.
The southbound left and right turn movements at CSAH 37 & Edmonson Avenue are anticipated to operate
at LOS F during the PM peak hour with delays exceeding 100 seconds per vehicle. The northbound
approach is also nearing its capacity, with all three movements operating at LOS E. Therefore, it is
recommended that northbound and southbound left turn lanes be installed at this intersection to reduce
delays.
All 95th percentile queues are anticipated to remain within their provided storage bays. Traffic analysis
reports are included in Appendix J.
21 Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
Table 5-4: Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 2 Level of Service
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Left Through Right Overall Left Through Right Overall
MN 25 &
85th Street Signal
EB C (31) C (24) A (3)
B (16)
E (73) E (55) A (3)
B (15) WB C (29) C (34) A (5) E (64) D (46) A (9)
NB B (13) A (10) A (3) B (13) A (8) A (1)
SB C (26) B (17) A (2) B (17) B (13) A (2)
Edmonson
Avenue &
85th Street
Side
Street
Stop
EB A (9) B (12) A (6)
B (14)
C (20) C (20) B (12)
C (20) WB B (10) B (14) B (11) B (12) B (15) A (8)
NB A (2) A (2) A (0) A (3) A (3) A (1)
SB A (1) A (3) A (1) A (3) A (2) A (1)
MN 25 &
CSAH 37
Round-
about
EB A (6)
A (7)
A (7)
C (24) WB A (6) A (10)
NB A (9) E (36)
SB A (8) C (21)
CSAH 37 &
Davidson
Avenue
Side
Street
Stop
EB A (4) A (1) -
A (3)
A (3) A (2) -
A (4) WB - A (4) A (3) - A (4) A (2)
NB - - - - - -
SB A (7) - A (5) B (12) - A (9)
CSAH 37 &
Edmonson
Avenue
Side
Street
Stop
EB A (5) A (3) A (3)
C (18)
A (5) A (5) A (3)
F (90) WB A (2) A (2) A (1) A (4) A (3) A (1)
NB C (16) C (18) A (6) E (45) E (43) E (35)
SB B (13) B (10) A (7) F (90) E (35) F (84)
MN 25 &
Future
Roadway (West
Access)
Side
Street Stop
EB - - -
D (34)
- - -
F (100+) WB D (34) - B (14) F (100+) - F (100+)
NB - A (3) A (1) - A (4) A (1)
SB B (13) A (8) - C (19) A (8) -
85th Street
& North
Access
Side
Street
Stop
EB - A (7) A (4)
C (20)
- A (4) A (2)
C (25) WB B (10) A (8) - A (4) A (4) -
NB C (20) - B (11) C (25) - C (20)
SB - - - - - -
Edmonson
Avenue &
East
Access
Side
Street
Stop
EB B (14) - A (6)
B (14)
B (14) - B (11)
B (14) WB - - - - - -
NB A (5) A (5) - - A (2) -
SB - A (5) A (1) - A (2) A (0)
School
Boulevard
& Fallon Avenue
Round-
about
EB B (11)
B (13)
B (13)
B (11) WB C (19) B (12)
NB A (8) B (12)
SB A (9) A (10)
Note: The Overall LOS in side street stop-controlled intersections is reported as the worst movement.
Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
22
5.8 Mitigated Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 2
In order to determine the impact of the proposed mitigations on the Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 2,
a Mitigated Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 2 capacity analysis was conducted. The following mitigations
were included in the analysis:
• 250-foot dedicated left turn lanes were added to the northbound and southbound approaches at
Edmonson Avenue & CSAH 37.
• A northbound bypass (for right turns) lane was added to the MN 25 & CSAH 37 roundabout
• A traffic signal was added to the intersection of MN 25 & Future Roadway. Northbound right and
southbound left turn lanes were assumed, along with separate westbound left and right turn lanes.
Results of the Mitigated Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 2 capacity analysis are shown in Table 5-5.
The results of the analysis show improvements in delay at all mitigated intersections, particularly in the PM
hour, but the intersection of Edmonson Avenue & CSAH 37 is still anticipated to experience some minor
operational deficiencies with side street delays up to 44 seconds per vehicle during the PM peak hour.
While some long delays are anticipated, none of the movements are anticipated to operate at LOS F.
Therefore, no further mitigation is proposed. However, as the parcels develop, the intersection should be
monitored for a possible change in traffic control which could include all-way stop control, roundabout, or a
traffic signal.
The intersection of MN 25 & Future Roadway is anticipated to operate acceptably with a signal in place,
with all individual movements operating at LOS C or better during the AM and PM peak hour.
At MN 25 & CSAH 37, the installation of a northbound bypass lane is anticipated to significantly reduce the
anticipated delays at the northbound approach of the intersection during the PM peak hour, improving from
LOS E to LOS A during this period. The intersection is anticipated to see acceptable operations overall,
operating at LOS A and LOS B during the peak hours with all approaches operating at LOS C or better.
23 Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
Table 5-5: Mitigated Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 2 Level of Service
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Left Through Right Overall Left Through Right Overall
MN 25 &
CSAH 37
Round-
about
EB A (6)
A (6)
A (7)
B (13) WB A (5) A (10)
NB A (5) A (9)
SB A (7) C (21)
Edmonson
Avenue &
CSAH 37
Side
Street
Stop
EB A (5) A (3) A (2)
C (19)
A (5) A (5) A (3)
E (44) WB A (2) A (2) A (1) A (4) A (2) A (1)
NB C (16) C (19) A (7) C (24) E (38) C (23)
SB C (15) A (9) A (6) E (44) A (9) A (9)
MN 25 &
Future
Roadway
(West Access)
Signal
EB - - -
B (12)
- - -
B (17) WB C (25) - A (9) C (30) - C (25)
NB - B (12) A (4) - B (16) A (6)
SB B (16) B (11) - C (29) B (15) -
1Worst movement delay reported in place of overall delay at side street stop intersections. Excludes minor movements (<5 vph).
Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
24
6. TURN LANE WARRANT ANALYSIS
Warrant analysis was conducted at the two site access points for Opening Year (2030) and Design Year
(2045) of Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 to determine the need for major-road left- and right-turn lanes at the
site access points and stop-controlled study intersections. The warrant analysis was carried out using the
methodologies outlined in National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 457
regarding the need for major-road turn lanes at unsignalized intersections. Results of the analysis are
summarized below in Table 6-1.
Table 6-1: Turn Lane Warrant Analysis Summary
Intersection Movement
Turn Lane Warrant Result by Scenario
No-Build Scenario 1 Scenario 2
2030 2045 2030 2045 2030 2045
85th Street NE & North
Access
WBL - - Not Met Not Met Met Met
EBR - - Met Met Met Met
Edmonson Avenue NE &
East Access
NBL - - Not Met Not Met Met Met
SBR - - Not Met Not Met Met Met
MN 25 & Future Roadway NBR - Not Met - Not Met - Met
SBL - Met - Met - Met
Edmonson Avenue & 85th
Street NE
NBR Not Met Not Met Met Met Met Met
NBL Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met Met Met
SBR Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met Met
SBL Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met Not Met
Results of the warrant analysis indicate that multiple turn lanes will be required under Scenario 2 conditions
while three turn lanes will be required under Scenario 1 conditions. A southbound left turn lane along MN
25 at the proposed future collector roadway will be required under the No-Build conditions. Turn lanes
shown to be warranted are included in the recommended mitigation listed in the section below.
25 Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
7. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A traffic analysis was performed to quantify the impacts of the proposed development on the adjacent
roadway network and study intersections. The proposed site is encompassed by 85th Street, Davidson
Avenue and Edmonson Avenue. No-Build, Build Scenario 1, and Build Scenario 2 were analyzed in the
Opening Year (2030) and Design Year (2045). An Existing Year (2025) analysis was also conducted.
7 .1 Project Characteristics
Two development buildout scenarios were considered; Scenario 1 consists of a 3 million square-foot
Technology Park while Scenario 2 consists of a 5 million square-foot Industrial Park. Scenario 1 is
anticipated to generate 330 and 270 trips during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Scenario 2 is
anticipated to generate 1,700 trips in both the AM and PM peak hours.
The study area intersections include the following (side street stop controlled unless otherwise noted):
• MN 25 & 85th Street NE (Signal Controlled)
• Edmonson Avenue NE & 85th Street NE
• MN 25 & County Road 37 (Signal Controlled; planned roundabout)
• County Road 37 & Davidson Avenue
• County Road 37 & Edmonson Avenue
• MN 25 & Davidson Avenue (Intersection to be removed in the future)
• School Boulevard & Fallon Avenue (All-way stop; planned roundabout)
The listed intersections were analyzed in the following scenarios:
• Existing Year (2025)
• Opening Year (2030) No-Build
• Opening Year (2030) Build Scenario 1
• Opening Year (2030) Build Scenario 2
• Design Year (2045) No-Build
• Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 1
• Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 2
Additionally, mitigation scenarios were analyzed for each of the scenarios that were shown to require
significant mitigation measures.
7 .2 Existing Year (2025) Capacity Analysis Summary
A capacity analysis was conducted for Existing Year (2025) traffic conditions at the study intersections to
determine baseline existing conditions. Based on the analysis, all intersections currently operate at
acceptable LOS and there are no queuing issues at the study intersections.
7 .3 Opening Year (2030) No-Build Capacity Analysis Summary
A capacity analysis was conducted for the Opening Year (2030) No-Build traffic conditions at the study
intersections to determine baseline conditions for the 2030 analysis year. A roundabout was assumed to
be in place at MN 25 & County Road 37 and the Davidson Avenue connection to MN 25 was assumed to
Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
26
be removed by 2030. Based on the analysis, all intersections are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS
and there are no queuing issues at the study intersections.
7.4 Opening Year (2030) Build Scenario 1 Capacity Analysis Summary
Scenario 1 consists of a 3 million square foot technology park and was assumed to be fully operational by
2030. With the addition of Scenario 1 site traffic, the roadway system slightly worsen in terms of delay and
queues. All intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS B or better and all individual movements are
expected to operate at LOS E or better. The roadway system is expected to operate at acceptable LOS
and there are no queuing issues at the study intersections.
Turn lane warrants were analyzed at the study intersections and site access points, and it was determined
that the eastbound right turn movement at Edmonson Avenue & East Access and northbound right turn
movement at Edmonson Avenue & 85th Street are anticipated to meet the warrant for turn lanes.
7 .5 Opening Year (2030) Build Scenario 2 Capacity Analysis Summary
Scenario 2 consists of a 5 million square foot industrial park and was assumed to be fully operational by
2030. With the addition of Scenario 2 traffic, the existing system worsens in terms of LOS and queuing. The
westbound left movement at MN 25 & Davidson Avenue is expected to operate at LOS F due to heavy
traffic with limited openings on MN 25. The movement has low usage with only three (3) vehicles utilizing
the movement in both the AM and PM peak hours. Due to this, mitigation was deemed to be unnecessary
for the movement.
The intersection of School Boulevard & Fallon Avenue is anticipated to operate poorly during the AM peak
hour, and a traffic control change may be necessary. A single-lane roundabout is recommended at the
intersection.
All other intersections are expected to operate at LOS D or better and all other individual movements are
expected to operate at LOS E or better. No queuing issues are present in the roadway system.
Turn lane warrants were analyzed at the study intersections and site access points, and it was determined
that left- and right-turn lanes would be required for the north access point, the east access point, and for
the northbound approach of Edmonson Avenue & 85th Street.
7.6 Design Year (2045) No-Build Capacity Analysis Summary
A capacity analysis was conducted for the Design Year (2045) No-Build traffic conditions at the study
intersections to determine baseline conditions for the 2045 analysis year. Background geometric changes
are anticipated to include a single-lane roundabout at MN 25 & CSAH 37, a single-lane roundabout at
School Boulevard & Fallon Avenue, removal of the Davidson Avenue connection to MN 25, and potential
construction of a new collector roadway connection to MN 25 south of the existing Davidson Avenue
intersection.
Based on the analysis, all other intersections are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS and there are
no queuing issues at the study intersections. The intersection of MN 25 & Future Roadway (proposed minor
collector) is anticipated to meet the warrant for a southbound left turn lane.
7.7 Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 1 Capacity Analysis Summary
In the long-term analysis of Scenario 1, the roadway system slightly worsen in terms of delay and queues.
27 Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
All intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS C or better and all individual movements are expected
to operate at LOS E or better. The roadway system is expected to operate at acceptable LOS and there
are no queuing issues at the study intersections.
Turn lane warrants were analyzed at the study intersections and site access points, and it was determined
that only the in addition to the turn lanes required under Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1 conditions, a
southbound left turn lane is at MN 25 & Future Roadway (proposed collector) is anticipated to meet
warrants.
The proposed Design Year (2045) Scenario 1 intersection control and geometry is shown in Exhibit 17.
7.8 Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 2 Capacity Analysis Summary
The long-term analysis of Scenario 2 reveals that multiple delay issues are expected. At MN 25 & CSAH
37, long delays are expected during the PM peak at the northbound approach of the roundabout. A
northbound bypass lane is recommended to reduce these delays. At MN 25 & Future Roadway (proposed
minor collector) the westbound left and right movements are expected to operate at LOS F. The intersection
is not expected to operate acceptably as a side street stop control under Scenario 2 conditions, and a traffic
signal or roundabout are expected to be required if the intersection is full-access. At the intersection of
Edmonson Avenue & CSAH 37, long side street delays are anticipated due to the addition of site generated
traffic. Installation of northbound and southbound left turn lanes are anticipated to be required to reduce
these delays to a reasonable level.
Turn lane warrants were analyzed at the study intersections and site access points, and it was determined
that in addition to the turn lanes required under the Design Year (2030) Scenario 2 conditions, left- and
right-turn lanes would be required at MN 25 & Future Roadway (proposed collector) and a southbound right
turn lane would be required at Edmonson Avenue & 85th Street.
The proposed Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 intersection control and geometry is shown in Exhibit 18.
7.9 Mitigation Plan
The following provides a summary of mitigation improvements that were identified as part of the traffic
analysis for the proposed development. The Design Year (2045) geometry proposed for the Scenario 1 and
Scenario 2 build conditions are also shown in Exhibit 17 and Exhibit 18, respectively.
Existing (2025) Conditions
• No Mitigation Necessary
Opening Year (2030) No-Build Conditions
• No Mitigation Necessary
Opening Year (2030) Build Scenario 1 Conditions
• Install a dedicated eastbound right-turn lane at Edmonson Avenue & North Access
• Install a northbound right turn lane at Edmonson Avenue & 85th Street
• Install Side Street Stop control at site access points (one approach lane is acceptable for each).
• As parcels begin to develop on the AUAR area, install sidewalk and trail connections to connect to
existing pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure
Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
28
Opening Year (2030) Build Scenario 2 Conditions
• Install dedicated right and left-turn lanes at 85th Street & East Access
• Install dedicated right and left-turn lanes at Edmonson Avenue & North Access
• Install northbound left- and right-turn lanes at Edmonson Avenue & 85th Street
• Install Side Street Stop control at all site access points (single-lane approaches are acceptable)
• As parcels begin to develop on the AUAR area, install sidewalk and trail connections to connect to
existing pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure
• Install a single-lane roundabout at School Boulevard & Fallon Avenue
Design Year (2045) No-Build Conditions
• Install a southbound left turn lane at MN 25 & Future Roadway (proposed collector) and install a
side street stop control at the intersection.
Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 1 Conditions
• All modifications from Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1 Condition
• Install a southbound left turn lane at MN 25 & Future Roadway (proposed collector) and install a
side street stop control at the intersection.
Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 2 Conditions
• All modifications from Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2 Conditions
• Install a traffic signal or roundabout at MN 25 & Future Roadway (proposed minor collector). Install
a northbound right-turn lane at this intersection.
o Alternatively, the intersection could be installed as a right-in/right-out or a three-quarter
access intersection to minimize side street delays.
• Install a southbound right turn lane at Edmonson Avenue & 85th Street NE
• Install northbound and southbound left turn lanes at CSAH 37 & Edmonson Avenue and monitor
the intersection for further mitigation needs.
• Install a northbound bypass (right-turn) lane at the MN 25 & CSAH 37 roundabout.
29 Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
November 2025
8. APPENDIX
Appendix A: Exhibits
Appendix B: Turning Movement Counts
Appendix C: Development Scenario Concepts
Appendix D: Existing Year (2025) Capacity Analysis Reports
Appendix E: Opening Year (2030) No-Build Capacity Analysis Reports
Appendix F: Design Year (2045) No-Build Capacity Analysis Reports
Appendix G: Opening Year (2030) Build Scenario 1 Capacity Analysis Reports
Appendix H: Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 1 Capacity Analysis Reports
Appendix I: Opening Year (2030) Build Scenario 2 Capacity Analysis Reports
Appendix J: Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 2 Capacity Analysis Reports
Appendix K: Mitigated Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 2 Capacity Analysis Reports
Appendix L: Turn Lane Warrant Analysis
Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis November 2025
30
Appendix A:
Exhibits
Exhibit 1. Project Location Map
Exhibit 2. Existing Geometry and Intersection Control
Exhibit 3. Existing Year (2025) Traffic Volumes
Exhibit 4. Opening Year (2030) No-Build Traffic Volumes
Exhibit 5. Design Year (2045) No-Build Traffic Volumes
Exhibit 6. Traffic Distribution (Scenario 1)
Exhibit 7. Total Peak Hour Site Trips (Scenario 1)
Exhibit 8. Passenger Vehicle Distribution (Scenario 2)
Exhibit 9. Passenger Vehicle Site Trips (Scenario 2)
Exhibit 10. Truck Traffic Distribution (Scenario 2)
Exhibit 11. Truck Site Trips (Scenario 2)
Exhibit 12. Total Peak Hour Site Trips (Scenario 2)
Exhibit 13. 2030 Build Traffic Volumes (Scenario 1)
Exhibit 14. 2030 Build Traffic Volumes (Scenario 2)
Exhibit 15. 2045 Build Traffic Volumes (Scenario 1)
Exhibit 16. 2045 Build Traffic Volumes (Scenario 2)
Exhibit 17. Proposed 2045 Geometry (Scenario 1)
Exhibit 18. Proposed 2045 Geometry (Scenario 2)
NOT TO SCALE
85th Street
School Blvd
MINNESOTA
25
MINNESOTA
25
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
106WRIGHT
COUNTY
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
37WRIGHT
COUNTY 37WRIGHT
COUNTY
EXHIBIT 1
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL
LEGEND
Study Intersection
Intersection to be removed
Future Study Intersection
Future Roadway / Access Point
Proposed Site Boundary
Roundabout to be
installed in 2026.
Davidson Avenue
Connection to be
removed in future.
East Access
West Access
NOT TO SCALE
85th Street
School Blvd
MINNESOTA
25
MINNESOTA
25
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
106WRIGHT
COUNTY
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
37WRIGHT
COUNTY 37WRIGHT
COUNTY
EXHIBIT 2
EXISTING GEOMETRY AND INTERSECTION CONTROL
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL
LEGEND
Study Intersection
Stop Control
Signal Control
Single-lane roundabout
to be installed in 2026.
NOT TO SCALE
85th Street
School Blvd
MINNESOTA
25
MINNESOTA
25
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
106WRIGHT
COUNTY
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
37WRIGHT
COUNTY 37WRIGHT
COUNTY
EXHIBIT 3
EXISTING YEAR (2025) TRAFFIC VOLUMES
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL
LEGEND
Study Intersection
AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic
NOT TO SCALE
85th Street
School Blvd
MINNESOTA
25
MINNESOTA
25
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
106WRIGHT
COUNTY
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
37WRIGHT
COUNTY 37WRIGHT
COUNTY
EXHIBIT 4
OPENING YEAR (2030) NO-BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL
LEGEND
Study Intersection
AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic
Davidson Avenue
Connection to be
removed by 2030.
NOT TO SCALE
85th Street
School Blvd
MINNESOTA
25
MINNESOTA
25
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
106WRIGHT
COUNTY
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
37WRIGHT
COUNTY 37WRIGHT
COUNTY
EXHIBIT 5
DESIGN YEAR (2045) NO BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL
LEGEND
Study Intersection
AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic
Future Roadway
Future Collector Road
NOT TO SCALE
85th Street
School Blvd
MINNESOTA
25
MINNESOTA
25
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
106WRIGHT
COUNTY
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
37WRIGHT
COUNTY 37WRIGHT
COUNTY
EXHIBIT 6
SCENARIO 1 TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL
LEGEND
Study Intersection
In [Out] Trip Distribution
Global Distribution
Site Location
X% [X%]
X%
East Access
Future Road
NOT TO SCALE
85th Street
School Blvd
MINNESOTA
25
MINNESOTA
25
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
106WRIGHT
COUNTY
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
37WRIGHT
COUNTY 37WRIGHT
COUNTY
EXHIBIT 7
TOTAL PEAK HOUR SITE TRIPS (SCENARIO 1)
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL
LEGEND
Study Intersection
AM (PM) Peak Site Trips
Site Location
East Access
Future Road
NOT TO SCALE
85th Street
School Blvd
MINNESOTA
25
MINNESOTA
25
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
106WRIGHT
COUNTY
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
37WRIGHT
COUNTY 37WRIGHT
COUNTY
EXHIBIT 8
PASSENGER VEHICLE DISTRIBUTION (SCENARIO 2)
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL
LEGEND
Study Intersection
In [Out] Trip Distribution
Global Distribution
Site Location
X% [X%]
X%
East Access
West Access
NOT TO SCALE
85th Street
School Blvd
MINNESOTA
25
MINNESOTA
25
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
106WRIGHT
COUNTY
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
37WRIGHT
COUNTY 37WRIGHT
COUNTY
EXHIBIT 9
PASSENGER VEHICLES SITE TRIPS (SCENARIO 2)
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL
LEGEND
Study Intersection
AM (PM) Peak Site Trips
Site Location
East Access
NOT TO SCALE
85th Street
School Blvd
MINNESOTA
25
MINNESOTA
25
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
106WRIGHT
COUNTY
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
37WRIGHT
COUNTY 37WRIGHT
COUNTY
West Access
EXHIBIT 10
TRUCK TRAFFIC DISTRIBTUION (SCENARIO 2)
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL
LEGEND
Study Intersection
In [Out] Trip Distribution
Global Distribution
Site Location
X% [X%]
X%
East Access
NOT TO SCALE
85th Street
School Blvd
MINNESOTA
25
MINNESOTA
25
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
106WRIGHT
COUNTY
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
37WRIGHT
COUNTY 37WRIGHT
COUNTY
East Access
EXHIBIT 11
TRUCK SITE TRIPS (SCENARIO 2)
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL
LEGEND
Study Intersection
AM (PM) Peak Site Trips
Site Location
West Access
NOT TO SCALE
85th Street
School Blvd
MINNESOTA
25
MINNESOTA
25
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
106WRIGHT
COUNTY
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
37WRIGHT
COUNTY 37WRIGHT
COUNTY
EXHIBIT 12
TOTAL PEAK HOUR SITE TRIPS (SCENARIO 2)
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL
LEGEND
Study Intersection
AM (PM) Peak Site Trips
Site Location
East Access
West Access
NOT TO SCALE
85th Street
School Blvd
MINNESOTA
25
MINNESOTA
25
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
106WRIGHT
COUNTY
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
37WRIGHT
COUNTY 37WRIGHT
COUNTY
EXHIBIT 13
2030 BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES (SCENARIO 1)
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL
LEGEND
Study Intersection
AM (PM) Peak Traffic Volume
Site Location
East Access
NOT TO SCALE
85th Street
School Blvd
MINNESOTA
25
MINNESOTA
25
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
106WRIGHT
COUNTY
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
37WRIGHT
COUNTY 37WRIGHT
COUNTY
EXHIBIT 14
2030 BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES (SCENARIO 2)
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL
LEGEND
Study Intersection
AM (PM) Peak Traffic Volume
Site Location
West Access
East Access
NOT TO SCALE
85th Street
School Blvd
MINNESOTA
25
MINNESOTA
25
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
106WRIGHT
COUNTY
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
37WRIGHT
COUNTY 37WRIGHT
COUNTY
EXHIBIT 15
2045 BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES (SCENARIO 1)
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL
LEGEND
Study Intersection
AM (PM) Peak Traffic Volume
Site Location
Future Road
East Access
NOT TO SCALE
85th Street
School Blvd
MINNESOTA
25
MINNESOTA
25
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
106WRIGHT
COUNTY
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
37WRIGHT
COUNTY 37WRIGHT
COUNTY
EXHIBIT 16
2045 BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES (SCENARIO 2)
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL
LEGEND
Study Intersection
AM (PM) Peak Traffic Volume
Site Location
West Access
East Access
NOT TO SCALE
85th Street
School Blvd
MINNESOTA
25
MINNESOTA
25
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
106WRIGHT
COUNTY
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
37WRIGHT
COUNTY 37WRIGHT
COUNTY
EXHIBIT 17
PROPOSED 2045 GEOMETRY - SCENARIO 1
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL
East Access
Future Road
Planned access removal
LEGEND
Study Intersection
Stop Control
Signal Control
Roundabout
NOT TO SCALE
85th Street
School Blvd
MINNESOTA
25
MINNESOTA
25
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
106WRIGHT
COUNTY
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
37WRIGHT
COUNTY 37WRIGHT
COUNTY
EXHIBIT 18
PROPOSED 2045 GEOMETRY - SCENARIO 2
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL
East Access
Planned access removal
LEGEND
Study Intersection
Stop Control
Signal Control
Roundabout
West Access
*See Note
*See Note
*A roundabout may also
be acceptable here.
31 Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis November 2025
Appendix B:
Turning Movement Counts
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: MN 25 & 85th StreetSite Code:Start Date: 07/11/2024Page No: 1
Turning Movement Data
Start Time
85th Street 85th Street MN 25 MN 25
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
7:00 AM 18 3 0 0 21 5 5 6 0 16 0 104 1 0 105 6 89 4 0 99 241
7:15 AM 16 2 7 0 25 3 2 2 0 7 0 95 2 0 97 2 119 10 0 131 260
7:30 AM 13 0 3 0 16 7 0 2 0 9 0 96 5 0 101 1 102 8 0 111 237
7:45 AM 19 0 3 0 22 4 2 0 0 6 1 103 2 0 106 5 104 8 0 117 251
Hourly Total 66 5 13 0 84 19 9 10 0 38 1 398 10 0 409 14 414 30 0 458 989
8:00 AM 10 0 5 0 15 3 0 1 0 4 2 105 1 0 108 0 91 11 0 102 229
8:15 AM 15 7 4 0 26 3 0 2 0 5 6 106 1 0 113 0 80 6 0 86 230
8:30 AM 14 0 6 0 20 1 1 2 0 4 0 100 0 0 100 2 80 8 0 90 214
8:45 AM 8 5 1 0 14 4 5 0 0 9 3 77 2 0 82 1 64 7 0 72 177
Hourly Total 47 12 16 0 75 11 6 5 0 22 11 388 4 0 403 3 315 32 0 350 850
*** BREAK ***---------------------
4:00 PM 11 4 4 0 19 3 6 6 0 15 4 138 3 0 145 5 140 19 0 164 343
4:15 PM 10 1 0 0 11 6 12 4 0 22 6 127 3 0 136 3 128 18 0 149 318
4:30 PM 18 5 1 0 24 6 10 3 0 19 7 140 4 0 151 4 134 20 0 158 352
4:45 PM 11 2 5 0 18 2 8 1 0 11 7 158 6 0 171 7 119 21 0 147 347
Hourly Total 50 12 10 0 72 17 36 14 0 67 24 563 16 0 603 19 521 78 0 618 1360
5:00 PM 15 7 3 0 25 4 10 5 0 19 5 118 5 0 128 5 113 19 0 137 309
5:15 PM 2 3 4 0 9 2 9 1 0 12 5 148 5 0 158 4 121 13 0 138 317
5:30 PM 10 5 5 0 20 2 6 3 0 11 4 150 3 0 157 1 111 14 0 126 314
5:45 PM 11 6 1 0 18 1 3 0 0 4 9 99 4 0 112 2 99 10 0 111 245
Hourly Total 38 21 13 0 72 9 28 9 0 46 23 515 17 0 555 12 444 56 0 512 1185
Grand Total 201 50 52 0 303 56 79 38 0 173 59 1864 47 0 1970 48 1694 196 0 1938 4384
Approach % 66.3 16.5 17.2 -- 32.4 45.7 22.0 -- 3.0 94.6 2.4 -- 2.5 87.4 10.1 ---
Total %4.6 1.1 1.2 -6.9 1.3 1.8 0.9 -3.9 1.3 42.5 1.1 -44.9 1.1 38.6 4.5 -44.2 -
Lights 201 50 51 -302 54 79 34 -167 58 1779 47 -1884 43 1617 194 -1854 4207
% Lights 100.0 100.0 98.1 -99.7 96.4 100.0 89.5 -96.5 98.3 95.4 100.0 -95.6 89.6 95.5 99.0 -95.7 96.0
Mediums 0 0 1 -1 2 0 4 -6 1 38 0 -39 5 35 2 -42 88
% Mediums 0.0 0.0 1.9 -0.3 3.6 0.0 10.5 -3.5 1.7 2.0 0.0 -2.0 10.4 2.1 1.0 -2.2 2.0
Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 -0 0 0 0 -0 0 47 0 -47 0 42 0 -42 89
% Articulated Trucks 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 -2.4 0.0 2.5 0.0 -2.2 2.0
Pedestrians ---0 ----0 ----0 ----0 --
% Pedestrians ---------------------
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: MN 25 & 85th StreetSite Code:Start Date: 07/11/2024Page No: 2
07/11/2024 7:00 AMEnding At07/11/2024 6:00 PM
LightsMediumsArticulated TrucksPedestrians
MN 25 [SB]
Out In Total
2014 1854 3868
42 42 84
47 42 89
0 0 0
2103 1938 4041
194 1617 43 0
2 35 5 0
0 42 0 0
0 0 0 0
196 1694 48 0
R T L P
14
5 0 0 5 14
0
Ou
t
17
3 0 0 6 16
7
In
31
8 0 0 11
30
7
To
t
a
l
85
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
[
W
B
]
R 38 0 0 4 34
T 79 0 0 0 79
L 56 0 0 2 54
P 0 0 0 0 0
1722 1884 3606
38 39 77
42 47 89
0 0 0
1802 1970 3772
Out In Total
MN 25 [NB]
L T R P
58 1779 47 0
1 38 0 0
0 47 0 0
0 0 0 0
59 1864 47 0
85
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
[
E
B
]
To
t
a
l
63
3 4 0 0 63
7
In
30
2 1 0 0 30
3
Ou
t
33
1 3 0 0 33
4
20
1 0 0 0 20
1 L
50 0 0 0 50 T
51 1 0 0 52 R
0 0 0 0 0 P
Turning Movement Data Plot
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: MN 25 & 85th StreetSite Code:Start Date: 07/11/2024Page No: 3
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (7:00 AM)
Start Time
85th Street 85th Street MN 25 MN 25
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
7:00 AM 18 3 0 0 21 5 5 6 0 16 0 104 1 0 105 6 89 4 0 99 241
7:15 AM 16 2 7 0 25 3 2 2 0 7 0 95 2 0 97 2 119 10 0 131 260
7:30 AM 13 0 3 0 16 7 0 2 0 9 0 96 5 0 101 1 102 8 0 111 237
7:45 AM 19 0 3 0 22 4 2 0 0 6 1 103 2 0 106 5 104 8 0 117 251
Total 66 5 13 0 84 19 9 10 0 38 1 398 10 0 409 14 414 30 0 458 989
Approach % 78.6 6.0 15.5 -- 50.0 23.7 26.3 -- 0.2 97.3 2.4 -- 3.1 90.4 6.6 ---
Total %6.7 0.5 1.3 -8.5 1.9 0.9 1.0 -3.8 0.1 40.2 1.0 -41.4 1.4 41.9 3.0 -46.3 -
PHF 0.868 0.417 0.464 -0.840 0.679 0.450 0.417 -0.594 0.250 0.957 0.500 -0.965 0.583 0.870 0.750 -0.874 0.951
Lights 66 5 13 -84 19 9 9 -37 1 374 10 -385 10 378 29 -417 923
% Lights 100.0 100.0 100.0 -100.0 100.0 100.0 90.0 -97.4 100.0 94.0 100.0 -94.1 71.4 91.3 96.7 -91.0 93.3
Mediums 0 0 0 -0 0 0 1 -1 0 10 0 -10 4 17 1 -22 33
% Mediums 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 -2.6 0.0 2.5 0.0 -2.4 28.6 4.1 3.3 -4.8 3.3
Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 -0 0 0 0 -0 0 14 0 -14 0 19 0 -19 33
% Articulated Trucks 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 -3.4 0.0 4.6 0.0 -4.1 3.3
Pedestrians ---0 ----0 ----0 ----0 --
% Pedestrians ---------------------
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: MN 25 & 85th StreetSite Code:Start Date: 07/11/2024Page No: 4
Peak Hour Data
07/11/2024 7:00 AMEnding At07/11/2024 8:00 AM
LightsMediumsArticulated TrucksPedestrians
MN 25 [SB]
Out In Total
449 417 866
11 22 33
14 19 33
0 0 0
474 458 932
29 378 10 0
1 17 4 0
0 19 0 0
0 0 0 0
30 414 14 0
R T L P
29 0 0 4 25 Ou
t
38 0 0 1 37
In
67 0 0 5 62
To
t
a
l
85
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
[
W
B
]
R 10 0 0 1 9
T 9 0 0 0 9
L 19 0 0 0 19
P 0 0 0 0 0
410 385 795
17 10 27
19 14 33
0 0 0
446 409 855
Out In Total
MN 25 [NB]
L T R P
1 374 10 0
0 10 0 0
0 14 0 0
0 0 0 0
1 398 10 0
85
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
[
E
B
]
To
t
a
l
12
3 1 0 0 12
4
In 84 0 0 0 84
Ou
t
39 1 0 0 40
66 0 0 0 66
L
5 0 0 0 5 T
13 0 0 0 13
R
0 0 0 0 0 P
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (7:00 AM)
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: MN 25 & 85th StreetSite Code:Start Date: 07/11/2024Page No: 5
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:00 PM)
Start Time
85th Street 85th Street MN 25 MN 25
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
4:00 PM 11 4 4 0 19 3 6 6 0 15 4 138 3 0 145 5 140 19 0 164 343
4:15 PM 10 1 0 0 11 6 12 4 0 22 6 127 3 0 136 3 128 18 0 149 318
4:30 PM 18 5 1 0 24 6 10 3 0 19 7 140 4 0 151 4 134 20 0 158 352
4:45 PM 11 2 5 0 18 2 8 1 0 11 7 158 6 0 171 7 119 21 0 147 347
Total 50 12 10 0 72 17 36 14 0 67 24 563 16 0 603 19 521 78 0 618 1360
Approach % 69.4 16.7 13.9 -- 25.4 53.7 20.9 -- 4.0 93.4 2.7 -- 3.1 84.3 12.6 ---
Total %3.7 0.9 0.7 -5.3 1.3 2.6 1.0 -4.9 1.8 41.4 1.2 -44.3 1.4 38.3 5.7 -45.4 -
PHF 0.694 0.600 0.500 -0.750 0.708 0.750 0.583 -0.761 0.857 0.891 0.667 -0.882 0.679 0.930 0.929 -0.942 0.966
Lights 50 12 10 -72 16 36 12 -64 24 545 16 -585 18 509 78 -605 1326
% Lights 100.0 100.0 100.0 -100.0 94.1 100.0 85.7 -95.5 100.0 96.8 100.0 -97.0 94.7 97.7 100.0 -97.9 97.5
Mediums 0 0 0 -0 1 0 2 -3 0 5 0 -5 1 5 0 -6 14
% Mediums 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 5.9 0.0 14.3 -4.5 0.0 0.9 0.0 -0.8 5.3 1.0 0.0 -1.0 1.0
Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 -0 0 0 0 -0 0 13 0 -13 0 7 0 -7 20
% Articulated Trucks 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 -2.2 0.0 1.3 0.0 -1.1 1.5
Pedestrians ---0 ----0 ----0 ----0 --
% Pedestrians ---------------------
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: MN 25 & 85th StreetSite Code:Start Date: 07/11/2024Page No: 6
Peak Hour Data
07/11/2024 4:00 PMEnding At07/11/2024 5:00 PM
LightsMediumsArticulated TrucksPedestrians
MN 25 [SB]
Out In Total
607 605 1212
7 6 13
13 7 20
0 0 0
627 618 1245
78 509 18 0
0 5 1 0
0 7 0 0
0 0 0 0
78 521 19 0
R T L P
47 0 0 1 46 Ou
t
67 0 0 3 64
In
11
4 0 0 4 11
0
To
t
a
l
85
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
[
W
B
]
R 14 0 0 2 12
T 36 0 0 0 36
L 17 0 0 1 16
P 0 0 0 0 0
535 585 1120
6 5 11
7 13 20
0 0 0
548 603 1151
Out In Total
MN 25 [NB]
L T R P
24 545 16 0
0 5 0 0
0 13 0 0
0 0 0 0
24 563 16 0
85
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
[
E
B
]
To
t
a
l
21
0 0 0 0 21
0
In 72 0 0 0 72
Ou
t
13
8 0 0 0 13
8
50 0 0 0 50
L
12 0 0 0 12
T
10 0 0 0 10
R
0 0 0 0 0 P
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:00 PM)
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: Edmonson Ave & 85th StreetSite Code:Start Date: 07/11/2024Page No: 1
Turning Movement Data
Start Time
85th Street 85th Street Edmonson Ave Edmonson Ave
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
7:00 AM 2 7 3 0 12 1 5 0 0 6 0 8 1 0 9 1 12 3 0 16 43
7:15 AM 0 4 1 0 5 2 5 1 0 8 1 12 2 0 15 2 8 1 0 11 39
7:30 AM 3 4 0 0 7 3 4 1 0 8 1 20 1 0 22 0 13 1 0 14 51
7:45 AM 3 5 0 0 8 4 4 1 0 9 0 31 1 0 32 0 10 1 0 11 60
Hourly Total 8 20 4 0 32 10 18 3 0 31 2 71 5 0 78 3 43 6 0 52 193
8:00 AM 0 2 1 0 3 5 0 1 0 6 0 16 3 0 19 2 6 0 0 8 36
8:15 AM 1 9 0 0 10 0 2 0 0 2 0 15 0 0 15 0 13 2 0 15 42
8:30 AM 0 2 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 4 1 11 1 0 13 1 13 2 0 16 35
8:45 AM 2 5 1 0 8 1 7 0 0 8 1 13 1 0 15 2 11 1 0 14 45
Hourly Total 3 18 2 0 23 6 13 1 0 20 2 55 5 0 62 5 43 5 0 53 158
*** BREAK ***---------------------
4:00 PM 2 4 2 0 8 3 13 1 0 17 7 20 3 0 30 2 25 2 0 29 84
4:15 PM 2 6 3 0 11 6 9 1 0 16 5 27 4 0 36 5 26 2 0 33 96
4:30 PM 1 4 3 0 8 4 12 2 0 18 3 28 5 0 36 4 32 2 0 38 100
4:45 PM 3 6 1 0 10 5 7 2 0 14 3 27 4 0 34 2 25 5 0 32 90
Hourly Total 8 20 9 0 37 18 41 6 0 65 18 102 16 0 136 13 108 11 0 132 370
5:00 PM 2 12 3 0 17 4 9 4 0 17 2 37 4 0 43 2 22 5 0 29 106
5:15 PM 3 4 4 0 11 4 12 0 0 16 4 26 2 0 32 2 18 4 0 24 83
5:30 PM 1 8 0 0 9 2 3 0 0 5 5 21 2 0 28 1 20 1 0 22 64
5:45 PM 2 7 1 0 10 1 4 1 0 6 1 15 1 0 17 2 13 3 0 18 51
Hourly Total 8 31 8 0 47 11 28 5 0 44 12 99 9 0 120 7 73 13 0 93 304
Grand Total 27 89 23 0 139 45 100 15 0 160 34 327 35 0 396 28 267 35 0 330 1025
Approach % 19.4 64.0 16.5 -- 28.1 62.5 9.4 -- 8.6 82.6 8.8 -- 8.5 80.9 10.6 ---
Total %2.6 8.7 2.2 -13.6 4.4 9.8 1.5 -15.6 3.3 31.9 3.4 -38.6 2.7 26.0 3.4 -32.2 -
Lights 25 87 22 -134 45 97 15 -157 32 321 33 -386 27 259 34 -320 997
% Lights 92.6 97.8 95.7 -96.4 100.0 97.0 100.0 -98.1 94.1 98.2 94.3 -97.5 96.4 97.0 97.1 -97.0 97.3
Mediums 2 2 0 -4 0 3 0 -3 1 5 1 -7 1 7 1 -9 23
% Mediums 7.4 2.2 0.0 -2.9 0.0 3.0 0.0 -1.9 2.9 1.5 2.9 -1.8 3.6 2.6 2.9 -2.7 2.2
Articulated Trucks 0 0 1 -1 0 0 0 -0 1 1 1 -3 0 1 0 -1 5
% Articulated Trucks 0.0 0.0 4.3 -0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 2.9 0.3 2.9 -0.8 0.0 0.4 0.0 -0.3 0.5
Pedestrians ---0 ----0 ----0 ----0 --
% Pedestrians ---------------------
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: Edmonson Ave & 85th StreetSite Code:Start Date: 07/11/2024Page No: 2
07/11/2024 7:00 AMEnding At07/11/2024 6:00 PM
LightsMediumsArticulated TrucksPedestrians
Edmonson Ave [SB]
Out In Total
361 320 681
7 9 16
1 1 2
0 0 0
369 330 699
34 259 27 0
1 7 1 0
0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0
35 267 28 0
R T L P
15
2 0 1 4 14
7
Ou
t
16
0 0 0 3 15
7
In
31
2 0 1 7 30
4
To
t
a
l
85
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
[
W
B
]
R 15 0 0 0 15
T 10
0 0 0 3 97
L 45 0 0 0 45
P 0 0 0 0 0
326 386 712
7 7 14
2 3 5
0 0 0
335 396 731
Out In Total
Edmonson Ave [NB]
L T R P
32 321 33 0
1 5 1 0
1 1 1 0
0 0 0 0
34 327 35 0
85
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
[
E
B
]
To
t
a
l
29
7 9 2 0 30
8
In
13
4 4 1 0 13
9
Ou
t
16
3 5 1 0 16
9
25 2 0 0 27 L
87 2 0 0 89 T
22 0 1 0 23 R
0 0 0 0 0 P
Turning Movement Data Plot
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: Edmonson Ave & 85th StreetSite Code:Start Date: 07/11/2024Page No: 3
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (7:00 AM)
Start Time
85th Street 85th Street Edmonson Ave Edmonson Ave
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
7:00 AM 2 7 3 0 12 1 5 0 0 6 0 8 1 0 9 1 12 3 0 16 43
7:15 AM 0 4 1 0 5 2 5 1 0 8 1 12 2 0 15 2 8 1 0 11 39
7:30 AM 3 4 0 0 7 3 4 1 0 8 1 20 1 0 22 0 13 1 0 14 51
7:45 AM 3 5 0 0 8 4 4 1 0 9 0 31 1 0 32 0 10 1 0 11 60
Total 8 20 4 0 32 10 18 3 0 31 2 71 5 0 78 3 43 6 0 52 193
Approach % 25.0 62.5 12.5 -- 32.3 58.1 9.7 -- 2.6 91.0 6.4 -- 5.8 82.7 11.5 ---
Total %4.1 10.4 2.1 -16.6 5.2 9.3 1.6 -16.1 1.0 36.8 2.6 -40.4 1.6 22.3 3.1 -26.9 -
PHF 0.667 0.714 0.333 -0.667 0.625 0.900 0.750 -0.861 0.500 0.573 0.625 -0.609 0.375 0.827 0.500 -0.813 0.804
Lights 7 19 4 -30 10 18 3 -31 2 70 5 -77 2 41 6 -49 187
% Lights 87.5 95.0 100.0 -93.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 -100.0 100.0 98.6 100.0 -98.7 66.7 95.3 100.0 -94.2 96.9
Mediums 1 1 0 -2 0 0 0 -0 0 1 0 -1 1 2 0 -3 6
% Mediums 12.5 5.0 0.0 -6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 -1.3 33.3 4.7 0.0 -5.8 3.1
Articulated Trucks 0 0 0 -0 0 0 0 -0 0 0 0 -0 0 0 0 -0 0
% Articulated Trucks 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0
Pedestrians ---0 ----0 ----0 ----0 --
% Pedestrians ---------------------
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: Edmonson Ave & 85th StreetSite Code:Start Date: 07/11/2024Page No: 4
Peak Hour Data
07/11/2024 7:00 AMEnding At07/11/2024 8:00 AM
LightsMediumsArticulated TrucksPedestrians
Edmonson Ave [SB]
Out In Total
80 49 129
2 3 5
0 0 0
0 0 0
82 52 134
6 41 2 0
0 2 1 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
6 43 3 0
R T L P
28 0 0 2 26 Ou
t
31 0 0 0 31
In
59 0 0 2 57
To
t
a
l
85
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
[
W
B
]
R 3 0 0 0 3
T 18 0 0 0 18
L 10 0 0 0 10
P 0 0 0 0 0
55 77 132
2 1 3
0 0 0
0 0 0
57 78 135
Out In Total
Edmonson Ave [NB]
L T R P
2 70 5 0
0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
2 71 5 0
85
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
[
E
B
]
To
t
a
l
56 2 0 0 58
In 30 2 0 0 32
Ou
t
26 0 0 0 26
7 1 0 0 8 L
19 1 0 0 20
T
4 0 0 0 4
R
0 0 0 0 0 P
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (7:00 AM)
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: Edmonson Ave & 85th StreetSite Code:Start Date: 07/11/2024Page No: 5
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:15 PM)
Start Time
85th Street 85th Street Edmonson Ave Edmonson Ave
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Left Thru Right Peds App. Total Int. Total
4:15 PM 2 6 3 0 11 6 9 1 0 16 5 27 4 0 36 5 26 2 0 33 96
4:30 PM 1 4 3 0 8 4 12 2 0 18 3 28 5 0 36 4 32 2 0 38 100
4:45 PM 3 6 1 0 10 5 7 2 0 14 3 27 4 0 34 2 25 5 0 32 90
5:00 PM 2 12 3 0 17 4 9 4 0 17 2 37 4 0 43 2 22 5 0 29 106
Total 8 28 10 0 46 19 37 9 0 65 13 119 17 0 149 13 105 14 0 132 392
Approach % 17.4 60.9 21.7 -- 29.2 56.9 13.8 -- 8.7 79.9 11.4 -- 9.8 79.5 10.6 ---
Total %2.0 7.1 2.6 -11.7 4.8 9.4 2.3 -16.6 3.3 30.4 4.3 -38.0 3.3 26.8 3.6 -33.7 -
PHF 0.667 0.583 0.833 -0.676 0.792 0.771 0.563 -0.903 0.650 0.804 0.850 -0.866 0.650 0.820 0.700 -0.868 0.925
Lights 8 28 9 -45 19 36 9 -64 12 117 16 -145 13 101 14 -128 382
% Lights 100.0 100.0 90.0 -97.8 100.0 97.3 100.0 -98.5 92.3 98.3 94.1 -97.3 100.0 96.2 100.0 -97.0 97.4
Mediums 0 0 0 -0 0 1 0 -1 1 2 0 -3 0 4 0 -4 8
% Mediums 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 -1.5 7.7 1.7 0.0 -2.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 -3.0 2.0
Articulated Trucks 0 0 1 -1 0 0 0 -0 0 0 1 -1 0 0 0 -0 2
% Articulated Trucks 0.0 0.0 10.0 -2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 5.9 -0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.5
Pedestrians ---0 ----0 ----0 ----0 --
% Pedestrians ---------------------
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: Edmonson Ave & 85th StreetSite Code:Start Date: 07/11/2024Page No: 6
Peak Hour Data
07/11/2024 4:15 PMEnding At07/11/2024 5:15 PM
LightsMediumsArticulated TrucksPedestrians
Edmonson Ave [SB]
Out In Total
134 128 262
2 4 6
0 0 0
0 0 0
136 132 268
14 101 13 0
0 4 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
14 105 13 0
R T L P
58 0 1 0 57 Ou
t
65 0 0 1 64
In
12
3 0 1 1 12
1
To
t
a
l
85
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
[
W
B
]
R 9 0 0 0 9
T 37 0 0 1 36
L 19 0 0 0 19
P 0 0 0 0 0
129 145 274
4 3 7
1 1 2
0 0 0
134 149 283
Out In Total
Edmonson Ave [NB]
L T R P
12 117 16 0
1 2 0 0
0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0
13 119 17 0
85
t
h
S
t
r
e
e
t
[
E
B
]
To
t
a
l
10
7 2 1 0 11
0
In 45 0 1 0 46
Ou
t
62 2 0 0 64
8 0 0 0 8 L
28 0 0 0 28
T
9 0 1 0 10
R
0 0 0 0 0 P
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:15 PM)
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: MN 25 & CR 37Site Code:Start Date: 07/16/2025Page No: 1
Turning Movement Data
Start Time
CR 37 CR 37 MN 25 MN 25
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
7:00 AM 16 27 2 45 13 17 0 30 1 70 12 83 0 78 11 89 247
7:15 AM 21 29 1 51 32 16 0 48 2 67 15 84 1 82 17 100 283
7:30 AM 13 29 2 44 31 19 1 51 0 80 7 87 1 94 15 110 292
7:45 AM 22 29 2 53 45 20 0 65 1 62 6 69 1 93 14 108 295
Hourly Total 72 114 7 193 121 72 1 194 4 279 40 323 3 347 57 407 1117
8:00 AM 15 21 2 38 20 13 5 38 1 80 9 90 1 73 16 90 256
8:15 AM 15 22 0 37 18 17 1 36 0 79 8 87 1 73 18 92 252
8:30 AM 13 30 1 44 29 12 1 42 0 70 11 81 3 68 21 92 259
8:45 AM 19 22 0 41 16 21 1 38 0 63 14 77 1 76 8 85 241
Hourly Total 62 95 3 160 83 63 8 154 1 292 42 335 6 290 63 359 1008
*** BREAK ***-----------------
4:00 PM 20 19 1 40 20 22 2 44 1 138 23 162 0 93 31 124 370
4:15 PM 21 25 1 47 18 37 3 58 0 111 35 146 0 96 27 123 374
4:30 PM 22 11 2 35 16 38 1 55 1 148 62 211 1 102 33 136 437
4:45 PM 29 28 1 58 18 29 4 51 1 127 38 166 1 122 35 158 433
Hourly Total 92 83 5 180 72 126 10 208 3 524 158 685 2 413 126 541 1614
5:00 PM 22 23 1 46 14 29 1 44 1 118 20 139 2 118 24 144 373
5:15 PM 20 18 2 40 15 29 3 47 0 115 26 141 1 78 24 103 331
5:30 PM 27 16 1 44 18 30 0 48 1 94 12 107 3 91 28 122 321
5:45 PM 22 22 0 44 21 29 1 51 3 84 13 100 2 65 22 89 284
Hourly Total 91 79 4 174 68 117 5 190 5 411 71 487 8 352 98 458 1309
Grand Total 317 371 19 707 344 378 24 746 13 1506 311 1830 19 1402 344 1765 5048
Approach %44.8 52.5 2.7 -46.1 50.7 3.2 -0.7 82.3 17.0 -1.1 79.4 19.5 --
Total %6.3 7.3 0.4 14.0 6.8 7.5 0.5 14.8 0.3 29.8 6.2 36.3 0.4 27.8 6.8 35.0 -
Lights 298 355 19 672 336 362 22 720 12 1456 309 1777 18 1352 329 1699 4868
% Lights 94.0 95.7 100.0 95.0 97.7 95.8 91.7 96.5 92.3 96.7 99.4 97.1 94.7 96.4 95.6 96.3 96.4
Buses 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 5 0 8 0 8 0 9 0 9 22
% Buses 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 4.2 0.7 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.5 0.4
Trucks 19 16 0 35 4 16 1 21 1 42 2 45 1 41 15 57 158
% Trucks 6.0 4.3 0.0 5.0 1.2 4.2 4.2 2.8 7.7 2.8 0.6 2.5 5.3 2.9 4.4 3.2 3.1
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: MN 25 & CR 37Site Code:Start Date: 07/16/2025Page No: 2
07/16/2025 7:00 AMEnding At07/16/2025 6:00 PM
LightsBusesTrucks
MN 25 [SB]
Out In Total
1776 1699 3475
9 9 18
62 57 119
1847 1765 3612
329 1352 18
0 9 0
15 41 1
344 1402 19
R T L
70
1
19 0 68
2
Ou
t
74
6
21 5 72
0
In
14
4
7
40 5
14
0
2
To
t
a
l
CR
3
7
[
W
B
]
R 24 1 1 22
T 37
8
16 0 36
2
L 34
4 4 4 33
6
1707 1777 3484
13 8 21
45 45 90
1765 1830 3595
Out In Total
MN 25 [NB]
L T R
12 1456 309
0 8 0
1 42 2
13 1506 311
CR
3
7
[
E
B
]
To
t
a
l
13
7
5
0 67
14
4
2
In
67
2 0 35
70
7
Ou
t
70
3 0 32
73
5
29
8 0 19
31
7 L
35
5 0 16
37
1 T
19 0 0 19 R
Turning Movement Data Plot
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: MN 25 & CR 37Site Code:Start Date: 07/16/2025Page No: 3
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (7:15 AM)
Start Time
CR 37 CR 37 MN 25 MN 25
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
7:15 AM 21 29 1 51 32 16 0 48 2 67 15 84 1 82 17 100 283
7:30 AM 13 29 2 44 31 19 1 51 0 80 7 87 1 94 15 110 292
7:45 AM 22 29 2 53 45 20 0 65 1 62 6 69 1 93 14 108 295
8:00 AM 15 21 2 38 20 13 5 38 1 80 9 90 1 73 16 90 256
Total 71 108 7 186 128 68 6 202 4 289 37 330 4 342 62 408 1126
Approach %38.2 58.1 3.8 -63.4 33.7 3.0 -1.2 87.6 11.2 -1.0 83.8 15.2 --
Total %6.3 9.6 0.6 16.5 11.4 6.0 0.5 17.9 0.4 25.7 3.3 29.3 0.4 30.4 5.5 36.2 -
PHF 0.807 0.931 0.875 0.877 0.711 0.850 0.300 0.777 0.500 0.903 0.617 0.917 1.000 0.910 0.912 0.927 0.954
Lights 67 104 7 178 125 61 4 190 4 274 36 314 3 329 56 388 1070
% Lights 94.4 96.3 100.0 95.7 97.7 89.7 66.7 94.1 100.0 94.8 97.3 95.2 75.0 96.2 90.3 95.1 95.0
Buses 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 6
% Buses 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 16.7 1.5 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.5
Trucks 4 4 0 8 1 7 1 9 0 13 1 14 1 12 6 19 50
% Trucks 5.6 3.7 0.0 4.3 0.8 10.3 16.7 4.5 0.0 4.5 2.7 4.2 25.0 3.5 9.7 4.7 4.4
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: MN 25 & CR 37Site Code:Start Date: 07/16/2025Page No: 4
Peak Hour Data
07/16/2025 7:15 AMEnding At07/16/2025 8:15 AM
LightsBusesTrucks
MN 25 [SB]
Out In Total
345 388 733
3 1 4
18 19 37
366 408 774
56 329 3
0 1 0
6 12 1
62 342 4
R T L
14
9 6 0 14
3
Ou
t
20
2 9 3 19
0
In
35
1
15 3 33
3
To
t
a
l
CR
3
7
[
W
B
]
R 6 1 1 4
T 68 7 0 61
L 12
8 1 2 12
5
461 314 775
3 2 5
13 14 27
477 330 807
Out In Total
MN 25 [NB]
L T R
4 274 36
0 2 0
0 13 1
4 289 37
CR
3
7
[
E
B
]
To
t
a
l
29
9 0 21
32
0
In 17
8 0 8 18
6
Ou
t
12
1 0 13
13
4
67 0 4 71
L
10
4 0 4 10
8
T
7 0 0 7
R
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (7:15 AM)
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: MN 25 & CR 37Site Code:Start Date: 07/16/2025Page No: 5
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:15 PM)
Start Time
CR 37 CR 37 MN 25 MN 25
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
4:15 PM 21 25 1 47 18 37 3 58 0 111 35 146 0 96 27 123 374
4:30 PM 22 11 2 35 16 38 1 55 1 148 62 211 1 102 33 136 437
4:45 PM 29 28 1 58 18 29 4 51 1 127 38 166 1 122 35 158 433
5:00 PM 22 23 1 46 14 29 1 44 1 118 20 139 2 118 24 144 373
Total 94 87 5 186 66 133 9 208 3 504 155 662 4 438 119 561 1617
Approach %50.5 46.8 2.7 -31.7 63.9 4.3 -0.5 76.1 23.4 -0.7 78.1 21.2 --
Total %5.8 5.4 0.3 11.5 4.1 8.2 0.6 12.9 0.2 31.2 9.6 40.9 0.2 27.1 7.4 34.7 -
PHF 0.810 0.777 0.625 0.802 0.917 0.875 0.563 0.897 0.750 0.851 0.625 0.784 0.500 0.898 0.850 0.888 0.925
Lights 89 84 5 178 64 130 9 203 3 497 155 655 4 423 118 545 1581
% Lights 94.7 96.6 100.0 95.7 97.0 97.7 100.0 97.6 100.0 98.6 100.0 98.9 100.0 96.6 99.2 97.1 97.8
Buses 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 6
% Buses 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.9 0.4
Trucks 5 3 0 8 1 3 0 4 0 7 0 7 0 10 1 11 30
% Trucks 5.3 3.4 0.0 4.3 1.5 2.3 0.0 1.9 0.0 1.4 0.0 1.1 0.0 2.3 0.8 2.0 1.9
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: MN 25 & CR 37Site Code:Start Date: 07/16/2025Page No: 6
Peak Hour Data
07/16/2025 4:15 PMEnding At07/16/2025 5:15 PM
LightsBusesTrucks
MN 25 [SB]
Out In Total
595 545 1140
0 5 5
12 11 23
607 561 1168
118 423 4
0 5 0
1 10 0
119 438 4
R T L
24
6 3 0 24
3
Ou
t
20
8 4 1 20
3
In
45
4 7 1 44
6
To
t
a
l
CR
3
7
[
W
B
]
R 9 0 0 9
T 13
3 3 0 13
0
L 66 1 1 64
492 655 1147
6 0 6
11 7 18
509 662 1171
Out In Total
MN 25 [NB]
L T R
3 497 155
0 0 0
0 7 0
3 504 155
CR
3
7
[
E
B
]
To
t
a
l
42
9 0 12
44
1
In 17
8 0 8 18
6
Ou
t
25
1 0 4 25
5
89 0 5 94
L
84 0 3 87
T
5 0 0 5
R
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:15 PM)
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: CR 37 & Davidson AveSite Code:Start Date: 07/16/2025Page No: 1
Turning Movement Data
Start Time
CR 37 CR 37 Davidson Ave
Eastbound Westbound Southbound
Left Thru App. Total Thru Right App. Total Left Right App. Total Int. Total
7:00 AM 0 39 39 34 1 35 2 0 2 76
7:15 AM 1 45 46 44 0 44 7 2 9 99
7:30 AM 0 38 38 55 4 59 5 1 6 103
7:45 AM 2 36 38 66 3 69 5 0 5 112
Hourly Total 3 158 161 199 8 207 19 3 22 390
8:00 AM 1 32 33 39 2 41 4 0 4 78
8:15 AM 0 27 27 35 3 38 2 2 4 69
8:30 AM 1 42 43 45 1 46 2 0 2 91
8:45 AM 2 37 39 33 0 33 1 0 1 73
Hourly Total 4 138 142 152 6 158 9 2 11 311
*** BREAK ***----------
4:00 PM 0 55 55 43 5 48 2 2 4 107
4:15 PM 1 58 59 65 5 70 3 0 3 132
4:30 PM 0 73 73 50 4 54 6 1 7 134
4:45 PM 2 72 74 51 4 55 12 0 12 141
Hourly Total 3 258 261 209 18 227 23 3 26 514
5:00 PM 0 43 43 42 6 48 4 1 5 96
5:15 PM 0 44 44 52 2 54 6 1 7 105
5:30 PM 4 28 32 51 1 52 2 2 4 88
5:45 PM 1 34 35 47 4 51 4 0 4 90
Hourly Total 5 149 154 192 13 205 16 4 20 379
Grand Total 15 703 718 752 45 797 67 12 79 1594
Approach %2.1 97.9 -94.4 5.6 -84.8 15.2 --
Total %0.9 44.1 45.0 47.2 2.8 50.0 4.2 0.8 5.0 -
Lights 15 686 701 726 43 769 64 12 76 1546
% Lights 100.0 97.6 97.6 96.5 95.6 96.5 95.5 100.0 96.2 97.0
Buses 0 0 0 4 1 5 1 0 1 6
% Buses 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 2.2 0.6 1.5 0.0 1.3 0.4
Trucks 0 17 17 22 1 23 2 0 2 42
% Trucks 0.0 2.4 2.4 2.9 2.2 2.9 3.0 0.0 2.5 2.6
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: CR 37 & Davidson AveSite Code:Start Date: 07/16/2025Page No: 2
07/16/2025 7:00 AMEnding At07/16/2025 6:00 PM
LightsBusesTrucks
Davidson Ave [SB]
Out In Total
58 76 134
1 1 2
1 2 3
60 79 139
12 64
0 1
0 2
12 67
R L
77
0
19 1 75
0
Ou
t
79
7
23 5 76
9
In
15
6
7
42 6
15
1
9
To
t
a
l
CR
3
7
[
W
B
]
R 45 1 1 43
T 75
2
22 4 72
6
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Out In Total
Fake Approach [NB]
CR
3
7
[
E
B
]
To
t
a
l
14
3
9
4 39
14
8
2
In
70
1 0 17
71
8
Ou
t
73
8 4 22
76
4
15 0 0 15 L
68
6 0 17
70
3 T
Turning Movement Data Plot
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: CR 37 & Davidson AveSite Code:Start Date: 07/16/2025Page No: 3
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (7:15 AM)
Start Time
CR 37 CR 37 Davidson Ave
Eastbound Westbound Southbound
Left Thru App. Total Thru Right App. Total Left Right App. Total Int. Total
7:15 AM 1 45 46 44 0 44 7 2 9 99
7:30 AM 0 38 38 55 4 59 5 1 6 103
7:45 AM 2 36 38 66 3 69 5 0 5 112
8:00 AM 1 32 33 39 2 41 4 0 4 78
Total 4 151 155 204 9 213 21 3 24 392
Approach %2.6 97.4 -95.8 4.2 -87.5 12.5 --
Total %1.0 38.5 39.5 52.0 2.3 54.3 5.4 0.8 6.1 -
PHF 0.500 0.839 0.842 0.773 0.563 0.772 0.750 0.375 0.667 0.875
Lights 4 146 150 193 8 201 19 3 22 373
% Lights 100.0 96.7 96.8 94.6 88.9 94.4 90.5 100.0 91.7 95.2
Buses 0 0 0 3 1 4 0 0 0 4
% Buses 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 11.1 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0
Trucks 0 5 5 8 0 8 2 0 2 15
% Trucks 0.0 3.3 3.2 3.9 0.0 3.8 9.5 0.0 8.3 3.8
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: CR 37 & Davidson AveSite Code:Start Date: 07/16/2025Page No: 4
Peak Hour Data
07/16/2025 7:15 AMEnding At07/16/2025 8:15 AM
LightsBusesTrucks
Davidson Ave [SB]
Out In Total
12 22 34
1 0 1
0 2 2
13 24 37
3 19
0 0
0 2
3 21
R L
17
2 7 0 16
5
Ou
t
21
3 8 4 20
1
In
38
5
15 4 36
6
To
t
a
l
CR
3
7
[
W
B
]
R 9 0 1 8
T 20
4 8 3 19
3
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Out In Total
Fake Approach [NB]
CR
3
7
[
E
B
]
To
t
a
l
34
6 3 13
36
2
In
15
0 0 5 15
5
Ou
t
19
6 3 8 20
7
4 0 0 4 L
14
6 0 5 15
1 T
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (7:15 AM)
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: CR 37 & Davidson AveSite Code:Start Date: 07/16/2025Page No: 5
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:00 PM)
Start Time
CR 37 CR 37 Davidson Ave
Eastbound Westbound Southbound
Left Thru App. Total Thru Right App. Total Left Right App. Total Int. Total
4:00 PM 0 55 55 43 5 48 2 2 4 107
4:15 PM 1 58 59 65 5 70 3 0 3 132
4:30 PM 0 73 73 50 4 54 6 1 7 134
4:45 PM 2 72 74 51 4 55 12 0 12 141
Total 3 258 261 209 18 227 23 3 26 514
Approach %1.1 98.9 -92.1 7.9 -88.5 11.5 --
Total %0.6 50.2 50.8 40.7 3.5 44.2 4.5 0.6 5.1 -
PHF 0.375 0.884 0.882 0.804 0.900 0.811 0.479 0.375 0.542 0.911
Lights 3 254 257 205 18 223 22 3 25 505
% Lights 100.0 98.4 98.5 98.1 100.0 98.2 95.7 100.0 96.2 98.2
Buses 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 2
% Buses 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.4 4.3 0.0 3.8 0.4
Trucks 0 4 4 3 0 3 0 0 0 7
% Trucks 0.0 1.6 1.5 1.4 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: CR 37 & Davidson AveSite Code:Start Date: 07/16/2025Page No: 6
Peak Hour Data
07/16/2025 4:00 PMEnding At07/16/2025 5:00 PM
LightsBusesTrucks
Davidson Ave [SB]
Out In Total
21 25 46
0 1 1
0 0 0
21 26 47
3 22
0 1
0 0
3 23
R L
28
1 4 1 27
6
Ou
t
22
7 3 1 22
3
In
50
8 7 2 49
9
To
t
a
l
CR
3
7
[
W
B
]
R 18 0 0 18
T 20
9 3 1 20
5
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
Out In Total
Fake Approach [NB]
CR
3
7
[
E
B
]
To
t
a
l
46
5 1 7 47
3
In
25
7 0 4 26
1
Ou
t
20
8 1 3 21
2
3 0 0 3 L
25
4 0 4 25
8 T
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:00 PM)
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: CR 37 & Edmondson AveSite Code:Start Date: 07/16/2025Page No: 1
Turning Movement Data
Start Time
CR 37 CR 37 Edmondson Ave Edmondson Ave
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
7:00 AM 1 36 2 39 12 30 0 42 0 11 5 16 2 11 0 13 110
7:15 AM 2 46 7 55 9 43 0 52 0 7 10 17 2 6 1 9 133
7:30 AM 0 38 4 42 9 49 1 59 6 9 11 26 1 4 4 9 136
7:45 AM 0 34 7 41 8 66 1 75 3 11 14 28 1 5 3 9 153
Hourly Total 3 154 20 177 38 188 2 228 9 38 40 87 6 26 8 40 532
8:00 AM 0 29 5 34 8 34 2 44 4 6 11 21 1 6 3 10 109
8:15 AM 0 27 4 31 4 35 0 39 1 7 5 13 1 5 1 7 90
8:30 AM 1 38 4 43 10 41 0 51 1 10 6 17 4 7 2 13 124
8:45 AM 1 36 3 40 4 29 1 34 5 8 6 19 1 8 1 10 103
Hourly Total 2 130 16 148 26 139 3 168 11 31 28 70 7 26 7 40 426
*** BREAK ***-----------------
4:00 PM 5 55 6 66 14 45 2 61 6 20 7 33 1 14 2 17 177
4:15 PM 1 52 4 57 13 58 2 73 6 23 9 38 0 15 2 17 185
4:30 PM 1 72 3 76 20 50 2 72 5 17 18 40 0 14 4 18 206
4:45 PM 2 73 14 89 16 43 2 61 6 24 9 39 1 10 1 12 201
Hourly Total 9 252 27 288 63 196 8 267 23 84 43 150 2 53 9 64 769
5:00 PM 1 41 5 47 15 42 2 59 6 18 17 41 0 11 3 14 161
5:15 PM 1 44 6 51 14 49 3 66 3 20 9 32 0 15 0 15 164
5:30 PM 0 26 4 30 7 53 0 60 1 16 13 30 3 8 0 11 131
5:45 PM 1 35 2 38 6 42 1 49 3 11 8 22 1 11 1 13 122
Hourly Total 3 146 17 166 42 186 6 234 13 65 47 125 4 45 4 53 578
Grand Total 17 682 80 779 169 709 19 897 56 218 158 432 19 150 28 197 2305
Approach %2.2 87.5 10.3 -18.8 79.0 2.1 -13.0 50.5 36.6 -9.6 76.1 14.2 --
Total %0.7 29.6 3.5 33.8 7.3 30.8 0.8 38.9 2.4 9.5 6.9 18.7 0.8 6.5 1.2 8.5 -
Lights 17 665 77 759 166 685 19 870 52 218 155 425 19 147 26 192 2246
% Lights 100.0 97.5 96.3 97.4 98.2 96.6 100.0 97.0 92.9 100.0 98.1 98.4 100.0 98.0 92.9 97.5 97.4
Buses 0 0 1 1 0 4 0 4 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 8
% Buses 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.4 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.5 0.3
Trucks 0 17 2 19 3 20 0 23 2 0 3 5 0 2 2 4 51
% Trucks 0.0 2.5 2.5 2.4 1.8 2.8 0.0 2.6 3.6 0.0 1.9 1.2 0.0 1.3 7.1 2.0 2.2
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: CR 37 & Edmondson AveSite Code:Start Date: 07/16/2025Page No: 2
07/16/2025 7:00 AMEnding At07/16/2025 6:00 PM
LightsBusesTrucks
Edmondson Ave [SB]
Out In Total
254 192 446
0 1 1
0 4 4
254 197 451
26 147 19
0 1 0
2 2 0
28 150 19
R T L
85
9
20 0 83
9
Ou
t
89
7
23 4 87
0
In
17
5
6
43 4
17
0
9
To
t
a
l
CR
3
7
[
W
B
]
R 19 0 0 19
T 70
9
20 4 68
5
L 16
9 3 0 16
6
390 425 815
2 2 4
7 5 12
399 432 831
Out In Total
Edmondson Ave [NB]
L T R
52 218 155
2 0 0
2 0 3
56 218 158
CR
3
7
[
E
B
]
To
t
a
l
15
2
2
7 43
15
7
2
In
75
9 1 19
77
9
Ou
t
76
3 6 24
79
3
17 0 0 17 L
66
5 0 17
68
2 T
77 1 2 80 R
Turning Movement Data Plot
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: CR 37 & Edmondson AveSite Code:Start Date: 07/16/2025Page No: 3
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (7:00 AM)
Start Time
CR 37 CR 37 Edmondson Ave Edmondson Ave
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
7:00 AM 1 36 2 39 12 30 0 42 0 11 5 16 2 11 0 13 110
7:15 AM 2 46 7 55 9 43 0 52 0 7 10 17 2 6 1 9 133
7:30 AM 0 38 4 42 9 49 1 59 6 9 11 26 1 4 4 9 136
7:45 AM 0 34 7 41 8 66 1 75 3 11 14 28 1 5 3 9 153
Total 3 154 20 177 38 188 2 228 9 38 40 87 6 26 8 40 532
Approach %1.7 87.0 11.3 -16.7 82.5 0.9 -10.3 43.7 46.0 -15.0 65.0 20.0 --
Total %0.6 28.9 3.8 33.3 7.1 35.3 0.4 42.9 1.7 7.1 7.5 16.4 1.1 4.9 1.5 7.5 -
PHF 0.375 0.837 0.714 0.805 0.792 0.712 0.500 0.760 0.375 0.864 0.714 0.777 0.750 0.591 0.500 0.769 0.869
Lights 3 147 18 168 37 183 2 222 8 38 39 85 6 25 7 38 513
% Lights 100.0 95.5 90.0 94.9 97.4 97.3 100.0 97.4 88.9 100.0 97.5 97.7 100.0 96.2 87.5 95.0 96.4
Buses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
% Buses 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2
Trucks 0 7 2 9 1 5 0 6 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 2 18
% Trucks 0.0 4.5 10.0 5.1 2.6 2.7 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 2.5 1.1 0.0 3.8 12.5 5.0 3.4
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: CR 37 & Edmondson AveSite Code:Start Date: 07/16/2025Page No: 4
Peak Hour Data
07/16/2025 7:00 AMEnding At07/16/2025 8:00 AM
LightsBusesTrucks
Edmondson Ave [SB]
Out In Total
43 38 81
0 0 0
0 2 2
43 40 83
7 25 6
0 0 0
1 1 0
8 26 6
R T L
20
0 8 0 19
2
Ou
t
22
8 6 0 22
2
In
42
8
14 0 41
4
To
t
a
l
CR
3
7
[
W
B
]
R 2 0 0 2
T 18
8 5 0 18
3
L 38 1 0 37
80 85 165
0 1 1
4 1 5
84 87 171
Out In Total
Edmondson Ave [NB]
L T R
8 38 39
1 0 0
0 0 1
9 38 40
CR
3
7
[
E
B
]
To
t
a
l
36
6 1 15
38
2
In 16
8 0 9 17
7
Ou
t
19
8 1 6 20
5
3 0 0 3 L
14
7 0 7 15
4
T
18 0 2 20
R
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (7:00 AM)
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: CR 37 & Edmondson AveSite Code:Start Date: 07/16/2025Page No: 5
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data (4:00 PM)
Start Time
CR 37 CR 37 Edmondson Ave Edmondson Ave
Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound
Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total
4:00 PM 5 55 6 66 14 45 2 61 6 20 7 33 1 14 2 17 177
4:15 PM 1 52 4 57 13 58 2 73 6 23 9 38 0 15 2 17 185
4:30 PM 1 72 3 76 20 50 2 72 5 17 18 40 0 14 4 18 206
4:45 PM 2 73 14 89 16 43 2 61 6 24 9 39 1 10 1 12 201
Total 9 252 27 288 63 196 8 267 23 84 43 150 2 53 9 64 769
Approach %3.1 87.5 9.4 -23.6 73.4 3.0 -15.3 56.0 28.7 -3.1 82.8 14.1 --
Total %1.2 32.8 3.5 37.5 8.2 25.5 1.0 34.7 3.0 10.9 5.6 19.5 0.3 6.9 1.2 8.3 -
PHF 0.450 0.863 0.482 0.809 0.788 0.845 1.000 0.914 0.958 0.875 0.597 0.938 0.500 0.883 0.563 0.889 0.933
Lights 9 247 26 282 61 191 8 260 22 84 43 149 2 51 9 62 753
% Lights 100.0 98.0 96.3 97.9 96.8 97.4 100.0 97.4 95.7 100.0 100.0 99.3 100.0 96.2 100.0 96.9 97.9
Buses 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 4
% Buses 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.4 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 1.9 0.0 1.6 0.5
Trucks 0 5 0 5 2 4 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 12
% Trucks 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.7 3.2 2.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 1.6 1.6
Kimley-Horn4201 Winfield Road Suite 600
Warrenville, Illinois, United States 60555(630) 487-5550 ethan.scowcroft@kimley-horn.com
Count Name: CR 37 & Edmondson AveSite Code:Start Date: 07/16/2025Page No: 6
Peak Hour Data
07/16/2025 4:00 PMEnding At07/16/2025 5:00 PM
LightsBusesTrucks
Edmondson Ave [SB]
Out In Total
101 62 163
0 1 1
0 1 1
101 64 165
9 51 2
0 1 0
0 1 0
9 53 2
R T L
29
7 5 0 29
2
Ou
t
26
7 6 1 26
0
In
56
4
11 1 55
2
To
t
a
l
CR
3
7
[
W
B
]
R 8 0 0 8
T 19
6 4 1 19
1
L 63 2 0 61
138 149 287
2 1 3
3 0 3
143 150 293
Out In Total
Edmondson Ave [NB]
L T R
22 84 43
1 0 0
0 0 0
23 84 43
CR
3
7
[
E
B
]
To
t
a
l
50
4 3 9 51
6
In 28
2 1 5 28
8
Ou
t
22
2 2 4 22
8
9 0 0 9 L
24
7 0 5 25
2
T
26 1 0 27
R
Turning Movement Peak Hour Data Plot (4:00 PM)
File Name : Fallon Ave & School Blvd
Site Code : 3
Start Date : 4/8/2025
Page No : 1
Fallon Ave & School Blvd
6am to 7pm
vehicles, heavy trucks, peds, bikes
Monticello, MN
Groups Printed- vehicles & peds - heavy trucks & bikes
Fallon Ave
From North From East
Fallon Ave
From South From West
Start Time Right Thru Left bikes App. Total Right Thru Left bikes App. Total Right Thru Left bikes App. Total Right Thru Left bikes App. Total Int. Total
06:00 AM 4 2 1 0 7 4 3 0 0 7 5 3 0 0 8 1 21 5 0 27 49
06:15 AM 0 4 0 0 4 1 4 1 0 6 11 9 3 0 23 2 29 4 0 35 68
06:30 AM 0 2 5 0 7 3 7 8 0 18 11 13 2 0 26 2 30 2 0 34 85
06:45 AM 3 2 5 0 10 9 14 4 0 27 17 9 2 0 28 1 31 8 0 40 105
Total 7 10 11 0 28 17 28 13 0 58 44 34 7 0 85 6 111 19 0 136 307
07:00 AM 2 6 7 0 15 15 23 3 0 41 13 14 2 0 29 4 33 12 0 49 134
07:15 AM 3 8 18 0 29 26 24 4 0 54 20 20 4 0 44 4 44 12 0 60 187
07:30 AM 9 8 25 32 74 29 27 11 0 67 20 30 2 0 52 1 41 37 19 98 291
07:45 AM 6 13 25 4 48 41 51 13 0 105 30 16 2 0 48 2 70 25 3 100 301
Total 20 35 75 36 166 111 125 31 0 267 83 80 10 0 173 11 188 86 22 307 913
08:00 AM 6 15 18 2 41 29 34 10 0 73 24 9 2 0 35 1 66 7 2 76 225
08:15 AM 6 3 8 1 18 8 26 1 0 35 5 9 2 0 16 4 37 5 0 46 115
08:30 AM 5 9 3 0 17 2 23 5 0 30 7 7 3 0 17 1 22 3 0 26 90
08:45 AM 7 6 5 0 18 12 23 1 0 36 6 4 1 0 11 2 26 3 0 31 96
Total 24 33 34 3 94 51 106 17 0 174 42 29 8 0 79 8 151 18 2 179 526
09:00 AM 7 3 8 1 19 3 20 4 0 27 5 7 2 0 14 3 19 4 0 26 86
09:15 AM 7 10 3 0 20 8 22 4 0 34 2 5 1 0 8 0 24 6 0 30 92
09:30 AM 7 6 2 0 15 2 13 5 0 20 3 9 2 1 15 4 20 8 0 32 82
09:45 AM 4 5 5 0 14 8 17 3 0 28 5 9 1 1 16 1 19 7 1 28 86
Total 25 24 18 1 68 21 72 16 0 109 15 30 6 2 53 8 82 25 1 116 346
10:00 AM 14 10 6 0 30 3 20 3 0 26 7 9 1 0 17 3 25 5 1 34 107
10:15 AM 8 9 4 0 21 4 28 0 0 32 8 8 0 3 19 3 24 6 5 38 110
10:30 AM 14 7 6 0 27 9 36 4 0 49 7 10 4 0 21 1 26 12 0 39 136
10:45 AM 11 6 3 0 20 4 31 1 0 36 1 6 4 0 11 1 27 7 0 35 102
Total 47 32 19 0 98 20 115 8 0 143 23 33 9 3 68 8 102 30 6 146 455
11:00 AM 8 5 4 1 18 4 33 3 0 40 3 3 1 0 7 4 22 7 0 33 98
11:15 AM 14 11 8 0 33 5 32 5 0 42 3 7 3 0 13 4 32 14 0 50 138
11:30 AM 12 9 6 0 27 7 37 3 0 47 6 4 1 0 11 4 29 8 0 41 126
11:45 AM 16 10 4 1 31 15 51 9 0 75 2 11 2 0 15 3 34 12 0 49 170
Total 50 35 22 2 109 31 153 20 0 204 14 25 7 0 46 15 117 41 0 173 532
12:00 PM 15 9 5 0 29 6 48 2 0 56 8 9 3 0 20 2 35 11 0 48 153
12:15 PM 11 10 6 0 27 5 42 1 0 48 2 5 5 0 12 1 35 11 0 47 134
12:30 PM 15 8 4 0 27 11 24 1 0 36 10 4 7 0 21 4 36 15 0 55 139
12:45 PM 11 10 5 0 26 9 55 8 0 72 7 9 3 1 20 5 37 10 0 52 170
Total 52 37 20 0 109 31 169 12 0 212 27 27 18 1 73 12 143 47 0 202 596
01:00 PM 13 8 10 0 31 6 39 7 0 52 3 5 1 0 9 2 26 12 0 40 132
01:15 PM 15 7 5 2 29 11 35 7 0 53 5 9 0 0 14 2 42 15 0 59 155
01:30 PM 12 13 9 1 35 7 26 9 0 42 4 5 3 1 13 3 35 10 0 48 138
01:45 PM 14 9 19 2 44 11 39 10 0 60 5 19 5 3 32 4 44 17 0 65 201
Total 54 37 43 5 139 35 139 33 0 207 17 38 9 4 68 11 147 54 0 212 626
02:00 PM 18 4 14 0 36 20 42 9 0 71 5 12 4 1 22 3 39 18 0 60 189
02:15 PM 23 19 15 38 95 32 41 5 0 78 7 11 5 0 23 7 34 18 19 78 274
02:30 PM 14 22 11 2 49 4 44 3 0 51 3 9 3 1 16 0 42 10 2 54 170
02:45 PM 16 15 17 1 49 7 57 15 0 79 8 10 3 0 21 8 39 13 1 61 210
Total 71 60 57 41 229 63 184 32 0 279 23 42 15 2 82 18 154 59 22 253 843
03:00 PM 17 19 15 11 62 24 73 29 0 126 9 12 3 1 25 3 60 14 3 80 293
03:15 PM 17 15 10 3 45 11 66 6 0 83 6 8 7 0 21 3 41 13 0 57 206
03:30 PM 22 20 7 3 52 11 42 11 0 64 5 10 4 0 19 7 30 9 2 48 183
03:45 PM 23 15 4 2 44 9 54 10 0 73 3 12 7 2 24 6 41 7 1 55 196
Total 79 69 36 19 203 55 235 56 0 346 23 42 21 3 89 19 172 43 6 240 878
04:00 PM 21 10 11 3 45 10 63 7 0 80 12 8 6 0 26 8 61 15 1 85 236
04:15 PM 16 19 13 0 48 13 68 14 0 95 9 17 3 1 30 8 47 10 2 67 240
04:30 PM 30 29 11 0 70 9 66 6 0 81 4 9 5 2 20 11 54 5 2 72 243
04:45 PM 17 24 9 3 53 16 66 16 0 98 10 17 5 5 37 3 70 13 1 87 275
Total 84 82 44 6 216 48 263 43 0 354 35 51 19 8 113 30 232 43 6 311 994
wsb
701 Xenia Ave S, Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
File Name : Fallon Ave & School Blvd
Site Code : 3
Start Date : 4/8/2025
Page No : 2
Fallon Ave & School Blvd
6am to 7pm
vehicles, heavy trucks, peds, bikes
Monticello, MN
Groups Printed- vehicles & peds - heavy trucks & bikes
Fallon Ave
From North From East
Fallon Ave
From South From West
Start Time Right Thru Left bikes App. Total Right Thru Left bikes App. Total Right Thru Left bikes App. Total Right Thru Left bikes App. Total Int. Total
05:00 PM 23 14 13 1 51 13 54 12 0 79 10 8 6 2 26 6 62 13 1 82 238
05:15 PM 25 20 6 1 52 8 82 16 0 106 7 18 9 1 35 8 59 10 0 77 270
05:30 PM 11 12 6 0 29 8 59 12 0 79 9 11 6 0 26 7 48 9 1 65 199
05:45 PM 9 14 20 2 45 18 78 12 0 108 12 12 6 2 32 7 57 10 2 76 261
Total 68 60 45 4 177 47 273 52 0 372 38 49 27 5 119 28 226 42 4 300 968
06:00 PM 16 13 8 4 41 10 67 12 0 89 6 14 6 0 26 5 46 9 4 64 220
06:15 PM 14 11 9 3 37 11 80 11 0 102 3 11 2 4 20 2 58 12 1 73 232
06:30 PM 15 8 12 2 37 3 47 5 0 55 8 7 5 1 21 12 42 9 0 63 176
06:45 PM 11 9 5 0 25 11 51 6 0 68 6 10 5 1 22 5 49 4 3 61 176
Total 56 41 34 9 140 35 245 34 0 314 23 42 18 6 89 24 195 34 8 261 804
Grand Total 637 555 458 126 1776 565 2107 367 0 3039 407 522 174 34 1137 198 2020 541 77 2836 8788
Apprch %35.9 31.2 25.8 7.1 18.6 69.3 12.1 0 35.8 45.9 15.3 3 7 71.2 19.1 2.7
Total %7.2 6.3 5.2 1.4 20.2 6.4 24 4.2 0 34.6 4.6 5.9 2 0.4 12.9 2.3 23 6.2 0.9 32.3
vehicles & peds 637 554 457 98 1746 564 2106 367 0 3037 407 522 174 19 1122 198 2020 541 60 2819 8724
% vehicles & peds 100 99.8 99.8 77.8 98.3 99.8 100 100 0 99.9 100 100 100 55.9 98.7 100 100 100 77.9 99.4 99.3
heavy trucks & bikes 0 1 1 28 30 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 15 15 0 0 0 17 17 64
% heavy trucks & bikes 0 0.2 0.2 22.2 1.7 0.2 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 44.1 1.3 0 0 0 22.1 0.6 0.7
wsb
701 Xenia Ave S, Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
File Name : Fallon Ave & School Blvd
Site Code : 3
Start Date : 4/8/2025
Page No : 3
Fallon Ave & School Blvd
6am to 7pm
vehicles, heavy trucks, peds, bikes
Monticello, MN
Fallon Ave
From North From East
Fallon Ave
From South From West
Start Time Right Thru Left bikes App. Total Right Thru Left bikes App. Total Right Thru Left bikes App. Total Right Thru Left bikes App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 06:00 AM to 09:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:15 AM
07:15 AM 3 8 18 0 29 26 24 4 0 54 20 20 4 0 44 4 44 12 0 60 187
07:30 AM 9 8 25 32 74 29 27 11 0 67 20 30 2 0 52 1 41 37 19 98 291
07:45 AM 6 13 25 4 48 41 51 13 0 105 30 16 2 0 48 2 70 25 3 100 301
08:00 AM 6 15 18 2 41 29 34 10 0 73 24 9 2 0 35 1 66 7 2 76 225
Total Volume 24 44 86 38 192 125 136 38 0 299 94 75 10 0 179 8 221 81 24 334 1004
% App. Total 12.5 22.9 44.8 19.8 41.8 45.5 12.7 0 52.5 41.9 5.6 0 2.4 66.2 24.3 7.2
PHF .667 .733 .860 .297 .649 .762 .667 .731 .000 .712 .783 .625 .625 .000 .861 .500 .789 .547 .316 .835 .834
Fallon Ave
Fallon Ave
Right
24
Thru
44
Left
86
Peds
38
InOut Total
281 192 473
Ri
g
h
t
12
5
Th
r
u
13
6
Le
f
t
38
Pe
d
s
0
Ou
t
To
t
a
l
In
40
1
29
9
70
0
Left
10
Thru
75
Right
94
Peds
0
Out TotalIn
90 179 269
Le
f
t
81
Th
r
u
22
1
Ri
g
h
t
8
Pe
d
s
24
To
t
a
l
Ou
t
In
17
0
33
4
50
4
Peak Hour Begins at 07:15 AM
vehicles & peds
heavy trucks & bikes
Peak Hour Data
North
wsb
701 Xenia Ave S, Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
File Name : Fallon Ave & School Blvd
Site Code : 3
Start Date : 4/8/2025
Page No : 4
Fallon Ave & School Blvd
6am to 7pm
vehicles, heavy trucks, peds, bikes
Monticello, MN
Fallon Ave
From North From East
Fallon Ave
From South From West
Start Time Right Thru Left bikes App. Total Right Thru Left bikes App. Total Right Thru Left bikes App. Total Right Thru Left bikes App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 10:00 AM to 01:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 01:00 PM
01:00 PM 13 8 10 0 31 6 39 7 0 52 3 5 1 0 9 2 26 12 0 40 132
01:15 PM 15 7 5 2 29 11 35 7 0 53 5 9 0 0 14 2 42 15 0 59 155
01:30 PM 12 13 9 1 35 7 26 9 0 42 4 5 3 1 13 3 35 10 0 48 138
01:45 PM 14 9 19 2 44 11 39 10 0 60 5 19 5 3 32 4 44 17 0 65 201
Total Volume 54 37 43 5 139 35 139 33 0 207 17 38 9 4 68 11 147 54 0 212 626
% App. Total 38.8 26.6 30.9 3.6 16.9 67.1 15.9 0 25 55.9 13.2 5.9 5.2 69.3 25.5 0
PHF .900 .712 .566 .625 .790 .795 .891 .825 .000 .863 .850 .500 .450 .333 .531 .688 .835 .794 .000 .815 .779
Fallon Ave
Fallon Ave
Right
54
Thru
37
Left
43
Peds
5
InOut Total
127 139 266
Ri
g
h
t
35
Th
r
u
13
9
Le
f
t
33
Pe
d
s
0
Ou
t
To
t
a
l
In
20
7
20
7
41
4
Left
9
Thru
38
Right
17
Peds
4
Out TotalIn
81 68 149
Le
f
t
54
Th
r
u
14
7
Ri
g
h
t
11
Pe
d
s
0
To
t
a
l
Ou
t
In
20
2
21
2
41
4
Peak Hour Begins at 01:00 PM
vehicles & peds
heavy trucks & bikes
Peak Hour Data
North
wsb
701 Xenia Ave S, Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
File Name : Fallon Ave & School Blvd
Site Code : 3
Start Date : 4/8/2025
Page No : 5
Fallon Ave & School Blvd
6am to 7pm
vehicles, heavy trucks, peds, bikes
Monticello, MN
Fallon Ave
From North From East
Fallon Ave
From South From West
Start Time Right Thru Left bikes App. Total Right Thru Left bikes App. Total Right Thru Left bikes App. Total Right Thru Left bikes App. Total Int. Total
Peak Hour Analysis From 02:00 PM to 06:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1
Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:30 PM
04:30 PM 30 29 11 0 70 9 66 6 0 81 4 9 5 2 20 11 54 5 2 72 243
04:45 PM 17 24 9 3 53 16 66 16 0 98 10 17 5 5 37 3 70 13 1 87 275
05:00 PM 23 14 13 1 51 13 54 12 0 79 10 8 6 2 26 6 62 13 1 82 238
05:15 PM 25 20 6 1 52 8 82 16 0 106 7 18 9 1 35 8 59 10 0 77 270
Total Volume 95 87 39 5 226 46 268 50 0 364 31 52 25 10 118 28 245 41 4 318 1026
% App. Total 42 38.5 17.3 2.2 12.6 73.6 13.7 0 26.3 44.1 21.2 8.5 8.8 77 12.9 1.3
PHF .792 .750 .750 .417 .807 .719 .817 .781 .000 .858 .775 .722 .694 .500 .797 .636 .875 .788 .500 .914 .933
Fallon Ave
Fallon Ave
Right
95
Thru
87
Left
39
Peds
5
InOut Total
139 226 365
Ri
g
h
t
46
Th
r
u
26
8
Le
f
t
50
Pe
d
s
0
Ou
t
To
t
a
l
In
31
5
36
4
67
9
Left
25
Thru
52
Right
31
Peds
10
Out TotalIn
165 118 283
Le
f
t
41
Th
r
u
24
5
Ri
g
h
t
28
Pe
d
s
4
To
t
a
l
Ou
t
In
38
8
31
8
70
6
Peak Hour Begins at 04:30 PM
vehicles & peds
heavy trucks & bikes
Peak Hour Data
North
wsb
701 Xenia Ave S, Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis
October 2025
32
Appendix C:
Development Scenario Concepts
Development Scenario 1
Development Scenario 2
33 Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis November 2025
Appendix D:
Existing Year (2025) SimTraffic Report
SimTraffic Performance Report
Existing (2025) -AM Peak Hour 07/22/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)4.0 0.4 4.0 1.2 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.3 3.2
Total Del/Veh (s)33.0 25.1 2.5 30.3 31.4 2.6 3.6 2.5 0.3 5.8 8.3 1.2
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6
Total Del/Veh (s)8.0
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)3.4 7.0 1.3 3.7 7.7 1.2 0.3 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.1
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)2.0
3: MN 25 & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.2 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.4 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)10.3 13.1 4.0 13.1 13.2 7.4 16.4 8.9 2.4 20.7 10.4 3.8
3: MN 25 & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)10.2
4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)5.8 4.5 1.5 1.1 3.2 0.0 2.0 2.9
SimTraffic Performance Report
Existing (2025) -AM Peak Hour 07/22/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.2 2.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)1.2 2.2 1.5 0.9 0.7 0.6 4.9 11.4 3.0 3.3 5.1 2.5
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)2.7
6: MN 25 & Davidson Ave Performance by movement
Movement WBL WBT WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)4.2 0.0 2.9 0.9 0.0 1.4 0.6 0.7
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7
Total Del/Veh (s)20.8
Queuing and Blocking Report
Existing (2025) -AM Peak Hour 07/22/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3
Intersection: 1: MN 25 & 85th St NE
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served L T L T L T T R L T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 100 34 73 33 12 46 68 2 27 145 41 26
Average Queue (ft)43 2 16 10 1 7 10 0 3 54 4 2
95th Queue (ft)84 15 47 31 5 28 38 1 16 114 30 13
Link Distance (ft)910 3490 813 813 1229 1229
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 375 300 500 500 550 500
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE
Movement EB WB
Directions Served LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)35 39
Average Queue (ft)18 19
95th Queue (ft)41 42
Link Distance (ft)1038 1108
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: MN 25 & CSAH 37
Movement EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT LT R L T R L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 120 152 25 16 92 21 22 119 33
Average Queue (ft)51 60 1 1 31 2 2 49 4
95th Queue (ft)92 111 18 8 70 11 11 104 18
Link Distance (ft)1468 4207 1187 3330
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)100 500 500 500 500
Storage Blk Time (%)1 2 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0
Queuing and Blocking Report
Existing (2025) -AM Peak Hour 07/22/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4
Intersection: 4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave
Movement EB SB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft)25 51
Average Queue (ft)1 13
95th Queue (ft)9 38
Link Distance (ft)4207 4515
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served L L LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)8 24 64 43
Average Queue (ft)0 3 30 19
95th Queue (ft)5 15 49 43
Link Distance (ft)604 1936
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: MN 25 & Davidson Ave
Movement WB SB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft)25 41
Average Queue (ft)6 4
95th Queue (ft)21 22
Link Distance (ft)1109 220
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report
Existing (2025) -PM Peak Hour 07/22/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)4.1 0.2 4.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.4 3.1
Total Del/Veh (s)60.3 52.8 2.4 55.1 43.6 2.7 4.1 2.6 0.5 6.5 7.9 1.6
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.5
Total Del/Veh (s)9.0
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)3.5 4.7 2.0 4.4 9.0 2.8 0.9 1.0 0.1 0.8 0.8 0.2
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)2.2
3: MN 25 & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 0.2 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.9 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)18.2 19.2 4.7 17.2 19.3 5.3 20.9 11.5 3.0 25.6 12.9 5.2
3: MN 25 & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6
Total Del/Veh (s)12.2
4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)2.6 3.2 1.6 1.5 4.2 0.0 2.6 2.5
SimTraffic Performance Report
Existing (2025) -PM Peak Hour 07/22/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 3.4 0.3 3.6 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)2.2 3.0 2.1 1.4 1.1 0.3 8.5 13.1 4.2 4.7 4.8 2.6
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4
Total Del/Veh (s)3.8
6: MN 25 & Davidson Ave Performance by movement
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)14.8 3.5 0.7 0.0 2.7 0.6 0.7
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9
Total Del/Veh (s)24.3
Queuing and Blocking Report
Existing (2025) -PM Peak Hour 07/22/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3
Intersection: 1: MN 25 & 85th St NE
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served L T L T L T T R L T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 131 55 60 95 33 80 94 8 28 149 128 7
Average Queue (ft)45 11 16 31 6 11 17 0 6 63 12 1
95th Queue (ft)99 37 45 76 22 47 59 4 21 123 55 4
Link Distance (ft)910 3490 813 813 1229 1229
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 375 300 500 500 550 500
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)48 52 25 28
Average Queue (ft)21 26 2 2
95th Queue (ft)46 46 12 15
Link Distance (ft)1038 1108 1056 1236
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: MN 25 & CSAH 37
Movement EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT LT R L T R L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 143 169 23 16 179 53 16 180 52
Average Queue (ft)62 70 1 2 69 7 1 61 10
95th Queue (ft)115 126 17 9 143 24 8 136 33
Link Distance (ft)1468 4207 1187 3330
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)100 500 500 500 500
Storage Blk Time (%)2 3 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0
Queuing and Blocking Report
Existing (2025) -PM Peak Hour 07/22/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4
Intersection: 4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave
Movement EB SB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft)19 47
Average Queue (ft)1 16
95th Queue (ft)8 41
Link Distance (ft)4207 4534
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37
Movement EB EB WB NB SB
Directions Served L R L LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)15 3 35 80 72
Average Queue (ft)1 0 7 37 28
95th Queue (ft)8 2 26 63 55
Link Distance (ft)604 1936
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300 300
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: MN 25 & Davidson Ave
Movement WB SB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft)37 81
Average Queue (ft)9 8
95th Queue (ft)26 42
Link Distance (ft)1096 188
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report
Existing (2025) -AM Peak Hour 10/13/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)3.5 0.3 0.3 3.7 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)7.3 12.0 7.0 7.1 10.6 5.9 7.5 9.3 6.2 7.2 8.2 5.0
3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)8.7
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)11.0
Queuing and Blocking Report
Existing (2025) -AM Peak Hour 10/13/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
Intersection: 3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard
Movement EB EB WB WB NB SB
Directions Served L TR L TR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)48 136 95 122 112 94
Average Queue (ft)9 64 43 52 51 45
95th Queue (ft)35 108 75 93 87 74
Link Distance (ft)624 529 597 603
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 150
Storage Blk Time (%)0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report
Existing (2025) -PM Peak Hour 10/13/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)3.6 0.4 0.3 3.5 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)6.3 11.4 5.8 7.1 11.8 6.7 6.5 8.1 4.3 7.5 8.7 5.3
3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6
Total Del/Veh (s)9.3
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6
Total Del/Veh (s)11.9
Queuing and Blocking Report
Existing (2025) -PM Peak Hour 10/13/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
Intersection: 3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard
Movement EB EB WB WB NB SB
Directions Served L TR L TR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)39 105 48 122 71 105
Average Queue (ft)20 57 24 64 38 51
95th Queue (ft)43 89 45 103 61 82
Link Distance (ft)624 529 597 603
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 150
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis November 2025
34
Appendix E:
Opening Year (2030) No-Build
SimTraffic Report
SimTraffic Performance Report
Opening Year (2030) No-Build -AM Peak Hour 07/22/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)4.0 0.3 3.9 1.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.3 3.3
Total Del/Veh (s)33.4 32.6 2.8 26.8 28.4 2.5 7.7 2.7 0.4 6.5 8.9 1.4
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6
Total Del/Veh (s)8.4
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)3.3 6.8 1.5 3.3 7.7 1.1 0.2 0.7 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.2
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)2.1
3: MN 25 & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.2 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.4 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)13.5 15.0 4.5 14.7 16.9 5.0 18.7 9.3 2.6 19.8 11.1 4.2
3: MN 25 & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)11.3
4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)4.3 4.8 1.7 1.5 3.9 0.0 1.4 3.0
SimTraffic Performance Report
Opening Year (2030) No-Build -AM Peak Hour 07/22/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.3 3.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)2.1 2.3 2.0 1.1 0.9 0.1 5.6 11.7 2.6 5.7 5.6 2.0
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4
Total Del/Veh (s)2.6
6: MN 25 & Davidson Ave Performance by movement
Movement WBL WBT WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)9.1 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.1 2.2 0.7 0.9
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)22.5
Queuing and Blocking Report
Opening Year (2030) No-Build -AM Peak Hour 07/22/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3
Intersection: 1: MN 25 & 85th St NE
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served L T L T L T T R L T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 106 39 66 39 6 44 70 12 36 143 96 16
Average Queue (ft)49 7 17 9 0 9 13 0 5 59 7 1
95th Queue (ft)93 29 47 32 3 32 49 8 22 115 44 8
Link Distance (ft)910 3490 813 813 1229 1229
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 375 300 500 500 550 500
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE
Movement EB WB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)47 40 8
Average Queue (ft)21 19 0
95th Queue (ft)44 41 4
Link Distance (ft)1038 1108 1236
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: MN 25 & CSAH 37
Movement EB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT LT L T R L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 135 157 16 100 20 17 149 29
Average Queue (ft)60 75 2 36 2 1 58 5
95th Queue (ft)107 132 10 82 12 7 128 19
Link Distance (ft)1468 4207 1187 3330
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)500 500 500 500
Storage Blk Time (%)2 4
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0
Queuing and Blocking Report
Opening Year (2030) No-Build -AM Peak Hour 07/22/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4
Intersection: 4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave
Movement SB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft)52
Average Queue (ft)15
95th Queue (ft)40
Link Distance (ft)4515
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37
Movement EB EB WB NB SB
Directions Served L R L LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)15 6 26 53 52
Average Queue (ft)1 0 5 27 23
95th Queue (ft)7 3 20 44 44
Link Distance (ft)604 1936
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300 300
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: MN 25 & Davidson Ave
Movement WB SB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft)19 59
Average Queue (ft)7 7
95th Queue (ft)21 35
Link Distance (ft)1109 220
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report
Opening Year (2030) No-Build -PM Peak Hour 07/22/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)4.0 0.4 4.1 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.4 2.9
Total Del/Veh (s)64.2 59.2 3.2 51.3 51.4 2.7 5.0 3.0 0.5 6.8 8.3 1.7
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6
Total Del/Veh (s)9.6
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)4.6 5.7 1.5 4.6 9.2 2.4 0.8 1.1 0.1 1.0 0.8 0.1
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)2.4
3: MN 25 & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.2 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.9 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)20.4 20.5 4.6 19.4 19.3 5.7 30.1 12.7 3.5 18.0 13.8 5.6
3: MN 25 & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7
Total Del/Veh (s)13.3
4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)3.9 3.0 1.8 1.2 4.6 0.0 1.4 2.5
SimTraffic Performance Report
Opening Year (2030) No-Build -PM Peak Hour 07/22/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 3.3 0.4 3.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)2.6 3.2 1.8 1.6 1.3 0.1 9.8 14.4 5.1 8.7 5.2 3.9
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4
Total Del/Veh (s)4.4
6: MN 25 & Davidson Ave Performance by movement
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)14.7 4.3 0.7 0.0 4.0 1.1 1.0
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.0
Total Del/Veh (s)26.4
Queuing and Blocking Report
Opening Year (2030) No-Build -PM Peak Hour 07/22/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3
Intersection: 1: MN 25 & 85th St NE
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served L T L T L T T R L T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 119 59 66 97 36 78 98 5 22 185 110 22
Average Queue (ft)49 12 17 41 7 12 22 0 5 73 10 3
95th Queue (ft)100 40 49 83 21 49 70 2 18 142 47 12
Link Distance (ft)910 3490 813 813 1229 1229
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 375 300 500 500 550 500
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)43 58 37 20
Average Queue (ft)24 29 2 2
95th Queue (ft)44 50 17 13
Link Distance (ft)1038 1108 1056 1236
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 3: MN 25 & CSAH 37
Movement EB WB WB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served LT LT R L T R L T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 136 180 50 18 222 41 10 230 46
Average Queue (ft)72 74 2 2 79 10 1 78 11
95th Queue (ft)119 137 27 11 158 29 6 166 33
Link Distance (ft)1468 4207 1187 3330
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)100 500 500 500 500
Storage Blk Time (%)3 4 0
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 0 0
Queuing and Blocking Report
Opening Year (2030) No-Build -PM Peak Hour 07/22/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4
Intersection: 4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave
Movement EB SB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft)15 46
Average Queue (ft)1 18
95th Queue (ft)7 40
Link Distance (ft)4207 4534
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37
Movement EB EB WB NB SB
Directions Served L R L LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)12 3 41 87 67
Average Queue (ft)1 0 11 42 30
95th Queue (ft)9 2 31 72 53
Link Distance (ft)604 1936
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300 300
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: MN 25 & Davidson Ave
Movement WB SB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft)38 124
Average Queue (ft)10 17
95th Queue (ft)27 70
Link Distance (ft)1096 188
Upstream Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 1
SimTraffic Performance Report
Opening Year (2030) No-Build -AM Peak Hour 10/13/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)3.8 0.3 0.4 3.7 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)6.6 13.7 8.4 7.5 10.8 6.3 8.7 9.8 6.6 7.6 9.5 5.7
3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)9.6
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)11.8
Queuing and Blocking Report
Opening Year (2030) No-Build -AM Peak Hour 10/13/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
Intersection: 3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard
Movement EB EB WB WB NB SB
Directions Served L TR L TR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)53 139 96 101 143 97
Average Queue (ft)10 72 47 55 56 48
95th Queue (ft)37 119 82 88 100 82
Link Distance (ft)624 529 597 603
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 150
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report
Opening Year (2030) No-Build -PM Peak Hour 10/13/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)3.6 0.4 0.4 3.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)7.2 12.2 7.2 7.8 12.4 7.3 7.5 8.4 5.1 8.0 9.7 5.6
3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6
Total Del/Veh (s)10.0
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6
Total Del/Veh (s)12.5
Queuing and Blocking Report
Opening Year (2030) No-Build -PM Peak Hour 10/13/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
Intersection: 3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard
Movement EB EB WB WB NB SB
Directions Served L TR L TR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)47 120 57 129 80 113
Average Queue (ft)22 61 29 67 41 58
95th Queue (ft)46 98 50 109 67 91
Link Distance (ft)624 529 597 603
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 150
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
Page 1 of 2Report dated 28-Aug-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Opening Year (2030) No-Build
Run number 18
Project: MN 25 & CSAH 372030 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2030 AM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 EB CSAH 37 None 210 513 144 908 0.2312
2 NB MN 25 None 352 205 518 1064 0.3308
3 WB CSAH 37 None 211 386 171 973 0.2170
4 SB MN 25 None 443 214 383 1059 0.4181
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 EB CSAH 37 None 4.80 4.80 0.80 A A
2 NB MN 25 None 4.66 4.66 1.29 A A
3 WB CSAH 37 None 4.41 4.41 0.74 A A
4 SB MN 25 None 5.32 5.32 1.87 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 28-Aug-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Opening Year (2030) No-Build
Run number 18
Project: MN 25 & CSAH 372030 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2030 AM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1216 1216
Capacity veh/hr 4004 4004
Average Delay sec/veh 4.88 4.88
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 1.65 1.65
Page 1 of 2Report dated 28-Aug-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Opening Year (2030) No-Build
Run number 23
Project: MN 25 & CSAH 372030 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2030 PM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 EB CSAH 37 None 195 529 277 900 0.2166
2 NB MN 25 None 745 192 532 1071 0.6959
3 WB CSAH 37 None 226 673 264 828 0.2731
4 SB MN 25 None 588 218 681 1057 0.5561
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 EB CSAH 37 None 4.75 4.75 0.76 A A
2 NB MN 25 None 9.33 9.33 6.02 A A
3 WB CSAH 37 None 5.54 5.54 1.05 A A
4 SB MN 25 None 6.80 6.80 3.36 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 28-Aug-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Opening Year (2030) No-Build
Run number 23
Project: MN 25 & CSAH 372030 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2030 PM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1754 1754
Capacity veh/hr 3856 3856
Average Delay sec/veh 7.49 7.49
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 3.65 3.65
35 Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis November 2025
Appendix F:
Opening Year (2030) Build Scenario 1
SimTraffic Report
SimTraffic Performance Report
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1 -AM Peak Hour 08/28/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)4.0 0.2 4.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.4 3.2
Total Del/Veh (s)30.7 22.2 2.7 30.5 25.0 3.2 1.3 4.0 0.5 7.6 10.0 1.4
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7
Total Del/Veh (s)8.9
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)3.9 8.5 2.3 4.3 8.6 2.5 0.5 0.7 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.0
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)2.9
4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)4.5 4.6 1.8 1.1 4.2 0.2 1.6 3.0
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 3.5 0.4 3.6 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)1.9 2.7 1.8 1.2 1.0 0.2 4.5 11.9 3.2 5.8 6.5 3.1
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.5
Total Del/Veh (s)3.0
6: MN 25 & Davidson Ave Performance by movement
Movement WBL WBT WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)12.5 0.1 2.2 0.9 0.0 1.9 0.3 0.6
SimTraffic Performance Report
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1 -AM Peak Hour 08/28/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
8: North Access & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)1.5 1.2 3.2 2.6 5.3 3.3 2.8
9: Edmonson Ave & East Access Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)5.3 2.9 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.1 1.3
Total Zone Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9
Total Del/Veh (s)213.8
Queuing and Blocking Report
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1 -AM Peak Hour 08/28/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3
Intersection: 1: MN 25 & 85th St NE
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served L T L T L T T R L T T R
Maximum Queue (ft)99 30 72 39 6 74 87 16 82 146 79 19
Average Queue (ft)44 6 25 9 0 14 20 1 21 69 6 2
95th Queue (ft)83 24 59 33 4 43 62 6 56 127 42 9
Link Distance (ft)910 2183 813 813 1229 1229
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 375 300 500 500 550 500
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)56 59 20 4
Average Queue (ft)27 29 1 0
95th Queue (ft)48 49 7 3
Link Distance (ft)2347 1108 1056 1236
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave
Movement EB SB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft)9 49
Average Queue (ft)1 15
95th Queue (ft)8 40
Link Distance (ft)4207 4515
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1 -AM Peak Hour 08/28/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4
Intersection: 5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served L L LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)15 31 69 73
Average Queue (ft)1 4 28 30
95th Queue (ft)8 20 52 54
Link Distance (ft)604 1936
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: MN 25 & Davidson Ave
Movement WB SB
Directions Served LR L
Maximum Queue (ft)19 32
Average Queue (ft)5 4
95th Queue (ft)18 21
Link Distance (ft)1104 220
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: North Access & 85th St NE
Movement WB NB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft)42 55
Average Queue (ft)3 33
95th Queue (ft)20 50
Link Distance (ft)2347 880
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1 -AM Peak Hour 08/28/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5
Intersection: 9: Edmonson Ave & East Access
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft)57 25
Average Queue (ft)28 3
95th Queue (ft)46 17
Link Distance (ft)825 1968
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1 -PM Peak Hour 08/28/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)4.0 0.3 4.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.4 3.0
Total Del/Veh (s)68.7 43.9 2.8 57.1 52.2 3.3 6.1 4.0 0.7 6.2 8.7 1.8
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6
Total Del/Veh (s)10.4
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)4.9 7.9 2.6 5.3 9.5 3.2 0.9 1.4 0.3 0.8 1.1 0.3
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)2.9
4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)5.3 3.0 1.9 1.5 4.5 0.0 1.4 2.5
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.1 3.3 0.4 3.4 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)3.0 3.0 1.9 1.5 1.3 0.3 10.3 14.5 5.0 9.5 5.7 4.8
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4
Total Del/Veh (s)4.5
6: MN 25 & Davidson Ave Performance by movement
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)10.5 5.2 0.8 0.1 4.4 0.3 0.7
SimTraffic Performance Report
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1 -PM Peak Hour 08/28/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
8: North Access & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)1.4 1.1 2.8 2.7 5.6 3.3 3.1
9: Edmonson Ave & East Access Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)6.3 3.3 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.3 1.6
Total Zone Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)139.4
Queuing and Blocking Report
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1 -PM Peak Hour 08/28/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3
Intersection: 1: MN 25 & 85th St NE
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served L T L T L T T R L T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 128 49 108 110 35 97 112 8 37 162 126 16
Average Queue (ft)53 12 35 38 7 20 33 1 11 75 19 2
95th Queue (ft)108 38 84 85 24 63 93 4 29 144 76 8
Link Distance (ft)910 2180 813 813 1229 1229
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 375 300 500 500 550 500
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)54 58 31 24
Average Queue (ft)30 32 3 1
95th Queue (ft)48 48 17 10
Link Distance (ft)2349 1108 1056 1236
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave
Movement EB SB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft)20 42
Average Queue (ft)1 15
95th Queue (ft)9 38
Link Distance (ft)4207 4534
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1 -PM Peak Hour 08/28/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4
Intersection: 5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37
Movement EB EB EB WB NB SB
Directions Served L T R L LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)27 9 1 31 84 83
Average Queue (ft)3 0 0 9 42 40
95th Queue (ft)15 6 1 27 74 69
Link Distance (ft)4079 604 1936
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300 300
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: MN 25 & Davidson Ave
Movement WB NB SB
Directions Served LR T L
Maximum Queue (ft)55 4 34
Average Queue (ft)12 0 6
95th Queue (ft)34 0 26
Link Distance (ft)1090 364 188
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: North Access & 85th St NE
Movement WB NB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft)20 63
Average Queue (ft)1 35
95th Queue (ft)10 55
Link Distance (ft)2349 1028
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1 -PM Peak Hour 08/28/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5
Intersection: 9: Edmonson Ave & East Access
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft)77 25
Average Queue (ft)33 2
95th Queue (ft)55 11
Link Distance (ft)904 1969
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Zone Summary
Zone wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1 -AM Peak Hour 10/13/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)3.5 0.3 0.3 3.6 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)6.8 15.0 9.4 9.0 11.9 6.7 11.1 11.2 8.2 7.7 9.9 5.6
3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9
Total Del/Veh (s)10.7
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9
Total Del/Veh (s)13.0
Queuing and Blocking Report
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1 -AM Peak Hour 10/13/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
Intersection: 3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard
Movement EB EB WB WB NB SB
Directions Served L TR L TR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)53 196 105 125 155 104
Average Queue (ft)9 80 57 59 65 48
95th Queue (ft)35 146 93 97 115 83
Link Distance (ft)624 529 597 603
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 150
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1 -PM Peak Hour 10/13/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)3.5 0.4 0.5 3.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)7.5 13.1 8.1 7.8 12.7 7.8 7.7 9.0 5.5 8.4 10.1 5.8
3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7
Total Del/Veh (s)10.4
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7
Total Del/Veh (s)12.9
Queuing and Blocking Report
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1 -PM Peak Hour 10/13/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
Intersection: 3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard
Movement EB EB WB WB NB SB
Directions Served L TR L TR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)47 130 58 142 94 105
Average Queue (ft)20 70 31 68 47 59
95th Queue (ft)45 111 53 113 75 91
Link Distance (ft)624 529 597 603
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 150
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
Page 1 of 2Report dated 28-Aug-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1
Run number 16
Project: MN 25 & CSAH 372030 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2030 AM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 EB CSAH 37 None 210 535 144 897 0.2340
2 NB MN 25 None 379 205 540 1064 0.3562
3 WB CSAH 37 None 218 404 180 963 0.2263
4 SB MN 25 None 458 221 401 1056 0.4338
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 EB CSAH 37 None 4.87 4.87 0.82 A A
2 NB MN 25 None 4.83 4.83 1.45 A A
3 WB CSAH 37 None 4.50 4.50 0.78 A A
4 SB MN 25 None 5.47 5.47 1.99 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 28-Aug-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1
Run number 16
Project: MN 25 & CSAH 372030 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2030 AM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1265 1265
Capacity veh/hr 3981 3981
Average Delay sec/veh 5.01 5.01
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 1.76 1.76
Page 1 of 2Report dated 28-Aug-2025
Rodel Version 1.96 Run number 7
2030 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions
Project: MN 25 & CSAH 37
Scheme: Opening Year (2030) Scenario 1
Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2030 PM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 EB CSAH 37 None 195 557 277 886 0.2200
2 NB MN 25 None 757 192 560 1071 0.7071
3 WB CSAH 37 None 235 681 268 824 0.2853
4 SB MN 25 None 607 227 689 1053 0.5765
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 EB CSAH 37 None 4.84 4.84 0.83 A A
2 NB MN 25 None 9.75 9.75 7.15 A A
3 WB CSAH 37 None 5.66 5.66 1.20 A A
4 SB MN 25 None 7.15 7.15 3.98 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 28-Aug-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Opening Year (2030) No-Build
Run number 7
Project: MN 25 & CSAH 372030 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2030 PM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1794 1794
Capacity veh/hr 3833 3833
Average Delay sec/veh 7.80 7.80
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 3.89 3.89
Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis November 2025
36
Appendix G:
Opening Year (2030) Build Scenario 2
SimTraffic Report
SimTraffic Performance Report
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2 -AM Peak Hour 08/29/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)4.0 0.3 3.9 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.4 2.5
Total Del/Veh (s)33.0 29.4 2.4 33.7 30.7 5.1 5.8 8.4 1.9 16.8 16.3 2.8
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9
Total Del/Veh (s)13.5
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)8.1 11.9 5.5 9.0 13.1 7.4 1.4 1.5 0.3 1.0 2.6 0.7
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)6.3
4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)2.4 1.1 4.2 2.4 7.7 1.1 3.9 2.5
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.1 3.1 0.7 3.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)3.8 2.8 1.5 1.7 1.9 0.6 9.1 13.8 3.6 9.1 8.2 4.9
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)3.2
6: MN 25 & Davidson Ave Performance by movement
Movement WBL WBT WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 3.1 0.0 0.0 0.4
Total Del/Veh (s)19.8 0.4 7.5 2.2 0.4 5.0 1.0 2.3
SimTraffic Performance Report
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2 -AM Peak Hour 08/29/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
8: North Access & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)6.1 3.7 9.3 7.3 18.0 10.6 7.5
9: Edmonson Ave & East Access Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)10.1 4.4 4.8 5.1 4.8 1.3 3.9
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9
Total Del/Veh (s)18.1
Queuing and Blocking Report
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2 -AM Peak Hour 08/29/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3
Intersection: 1: MN 25 & 85th St NE
Movement EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served L T L T R L T T R L T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 104 31 101 39 52 12 127 102 46 230 175 185
Average Queue (ft)40 4 33 8 1 1 54 38 10 104 70 65
95th Queue (ft)83 20 79 30 18 6 106 88 29 185 145 140
Link Distance (ft)915 2167 820 820 1229 1229
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 375 300 300 500 500 550
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 1: MN 25 & 85th St NE
Movement SB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft)10
Average Queue (ft)1
95th Queue (ft)5
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 500
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)83 130 66 19
Average Queue (ft)43 60 7 1
95th Queue (ft)72 100 35 10
Link Distance (ft)2362 1108 1056 1236
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2 -AM Peak Hour 08/29/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4
Intersection: 4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave
Movement EB SB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft)40 84
Average Queue (ft)5 34
95th Queue (ft)24 67
Link Distance (ft)2117 4515
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37
Movement EB WB WB NB SB
Directions Served L L R LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)55 32 5 64 88
Average Queue (ft)14 6 0 29 37
95th Queue (ft)40 22 4 51 70
Link Distance (ft)604 1936
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300 300
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: MN 25 & Davidson Ave
Movement WB NB SB
Directions Served LR R L
Maximum Queue (ft)96 20 121
Average Queue (ft)43 1 48
95th Queue (ft)81 8 93
Link Distance (ft)1104
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)275 150
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)1
Queuing and Blocking Report
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2 -AM Peak Hour 08/29/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5
Intersection: 8: North Access & 85th St NE
Movement EB WB NB
Directions Served TR LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft)38 93 210
Average Queue (ft)8 48 83
95th Queue (ft)29 82 156
Link Distance (ft)2167 2362 932
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 9: Edmonson Ave & East Access
Movement EB NB SB
Directions Served LR LT TR
Maximum Queue (ft)95 126 30
Average Queue (ft)47 40 3
95th Queue (ft)79 90 17
Link Distance (ft)825 1968 1807
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 1
SimTraffic Performance Report
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2 -PM Peak Hour 08/29/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)4.0 0.2 3.9 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.6 2.8
Total Del/Veh (s)68.4 54.3 2.6 63.5 52.1 7.3 6.6 6.3 1.1 13.3 11.0 1.9
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6
Total Del/Veh (s)12.7
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)13.3 16.6 9.4 11.8 14.0 6.8 2.5 4.3 1.2 1.7 1.9 0.4
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)7.2
4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)2.1 1.7 3.1 2.2 9.0 0.2 7.2 3.5
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.5 3.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)4.0 4.2 2.7 2.7 2.0 0.5 15.0 20.9 11.2 25.1 10.4 16.5
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4
Total Del/Veh (s)8.4
6: MN 25 & Davidson Ave Performance by movement
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.9 1.4 0.6 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.4
Total Del/Veh (s)86.9 69.1 3.8 0.8 7.3 0.7 12.8
SimTraffic Performance Report
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2 -PM Peak Hour 08/29/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
8: North Access & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)3.6 2.1 4.1 4.0 17.8 15.0 11.1
9: Edmonson Ave & East Access Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)14.6 11.5 2.0 2.5 2.4 0.4 7.9
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)26.2
Queuing and Blocking Report
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2 -PM Peak Hour 08/29/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3
Intersection: 1: MN 25 & 85th St NE
Movement EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served L T L T R L T T R L T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 121 45 174 114 236 32 153 141 30 133 243 222
Average Queue (ft)52 11 74 38 36 7 50 40 2 54 99 35
95th Queue (ft)107 36 141 86 158 22 111 102 14 104 191 134
Link Distance (ft)910 2180 813 813 1229 1229
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 375 300 300 500 500 550
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Intersection: 1: MN 25 & 85th St NE
Movement SB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft)26
Average Queue (ft)3
95th Queue (ft)13
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 500
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 153 103 61 36
Average Queue (ft)72 47 13 5
95th Queue (ft)126 82 43 22
Link Distance (ft)2349 1108 1056 1236
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2 -PM Peak Hour 08/29/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4
Intersection: 4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave
Movement EB SB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft)57 113
Average Queue (ft)5 46
95th Queue (ft)29 81
Link Distance (ft)2117 4534
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37
Movement EB EB WB WB NB SB
Directions Served L R L R LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)39 1 48 11 118 214
Average Queue (ft)5 0 14 0 50 90
95th Queue (ft)23 1 38 6 93 176
Link Distance (ft)604 1936
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300 300 300
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: MN 25 & Davidson Ave
Movement WB NB SB B14
Directions Served LR T L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 471 12 96 11
Average Queue (ft)193 0 37 0
95th Queue (ft)429 7 73 8
Link Distance (ft)1091 1332 188 813
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2 -PM Peak Hour 08/29/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5
Intersection: 8: North Access & 85th St NE
Movement EB WB NB
Directions Served TR LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft)15 42 356
Average Queue (ft)1 9 153
95th Queue (ft)9 34 287
Link Distance (ft)2180 2349 1028
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 9: Edmonson Ave & East Access
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft) 256 79
Average Queue (ft)112 11
95th Queue (ft)205 43
Link Distance (ft)904 1969
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2 -AM Peak Hour 10/14/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)3.0 0.3 0.3 3.5 1.7 1.6 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)8.7 43.9 35.4 55.7 29.1 20.8 18.7 18.5 13.8 11.4 13.0 9.5
3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4
Total Del/Veh (s)34.8
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4
Total Del/Veh (s)37.2
Queuing and Blocking Report
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2 -AM Peak Hour 10/14/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
Intersection: 3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard
Movement EB EB WB WB NB SB
Directions Served L TR L TR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)52 444 440 751 222 142
Average Queue (ft)8 155 197 199 81 58
95th Queue (ft)33 375 426 706 156 106
Link Distance (ft)1510 1297 966 918
Upstream Blk Time (%)3
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 400 400
Storage Blk Time (%)4 12 1
Queuing Penalty (veh)0 35 3
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 39
SimTraffic Performance Report
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2 -PM Peak Hour 10/14/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)2.9 0.4 0.4 2.8 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)7.4 29.1 25.5 8.7 16.5 11.0 19.7 18.5 16.4 12.4 13.7 8.6
3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7
Total Del/Veh (s)18.3
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7
Total Del/Veh (s)21.1
Queuing and Blocking Report
Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2 -PM Peak Hour 10/14/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
Intersection: 3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard
Movement EB EB WB WB NB SB
Directions Served L TR L TR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)48 331 80 199 226 141
Average Queue (ft)23 138 40 84 104 69
95th Queue (ft)44 267 66 153 189 117
Link Distance (ft)1407 1499 1054 918
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 400 400
Storage Blk Time (%)1
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
Page 1 of 2Report dated 14-Oct-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2
Run number 11
Project: Monticello AUAR - School Blvd & Fallon Ave2030 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2030 AM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 SB Fallon Ave None 144 742 139 719 0.2002
2 EB School Blvd None 334 444 442 876 0.3812
3 NB Fallon Ave None 253 260 518 973 0.2600
4 WB School Blvd None 681 200 313 1005 0.6779
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 SB Fallon Ave None 7.75 7.75 0.72 A A
2 EB School Blvd None 8.89 8.89 1.74 A A
3 NB Fallon Ave None 6.87 6.87 0.97 A A
4 WB School Blvd None 13.71 13.71 5.77 B B
Page 2 of 2Report dated 14-Oct-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2
Run number 11
Project: Monticello AUAR - School Blvd & Fallon Ave2030 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2030 AM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1412 1412
Capacity veh/hr 3573 3573
Average Delay sec/veh 9.74 9.74
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 3.82 3.82
Page 1 of 2Report dated 14-Oct-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2
Run number 13
Project: Monticello AUAR - School Blvd & Fallon Ave2030 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2030 PM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 SB Fallon Ave None 235 481 139 857 0.2743
2 EB School Blvd None 457 311 405 946 0.4830
3 NB Fallon Ave None 369 496 272 849 0.4348
4 WB School Blvd None 487 133 732 1040 0.4683
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 SB Fallon Ave None 7.67 7.67 1.03 A A
2 EB School Blvd None 9.93 9.93 2.48 A A
3 NB Fallon Ave None 9.88 9.88 2.08 A A
4 WB School Blvd None 9.11 9.11 2.32 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 14-Oct-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Opening Year (2030) Scenario 2
Run number 13
Project: Monticello AUAR - School Blvd & Fallon Ave2030 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2030 PM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1548 1548
Capacity veh/hr 3691 3691
Average Delay sec/veh 8.32 8.32
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 3.58 3.58
Page 1 of 2Report dated 29-Aug-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Design Year (2045) Scenario 2
Run number 27
Project: MN 25 & CSAH 372030 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2030 AM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 EB CSAH 37 None 210 568 144 876 0.2397
2 NB MN 25 None 564 205 573 1025 0.5505
3 WB CSAH 37 None 239 520 249 806 0.2966
4 SB MN 25 None 470 242 517 1038 0.4526
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 EB CSAH 37 None 5.02 5.02 0.93 A A
2 NB MN 25 None 6.69 6.69 3.41 A A
3 WB CSAH 37 None 5.43 5.43 1.15 A A
4 SB MN 25 None 5.74 5.74 2.40 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 29-Aug-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Design Year (2045) Scenario 2
Run number 27
Project: MN 25 & CSAH 372030 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2030 AM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1483 1483
Capacity veh/hr 3745 3745
Average Delay sec/veh 5.95 5.95
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 2.45 2.45
Page 1 of 2Report dated 29-Aug-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Design Year (2045) Scenario 2
Run number 30
Project: MN 25 & CSAH 372030 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2030 PM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 EB CSAH 37 None 195 734 277 789 0.2473
2 NB MN 25 None 806 192 737 1112 0.7251
3 WB CSAH 37 None 305 707 291 786 0.3882
4 SB MN 25 None 714 297 715 1075 0.6640
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 EB CSAH 37 None 5.56 5.56 0.97 A A
2 NB MN 25 None 10.59 10.59 8.44 B B
3 WB CSAH 37 None 6.66 6.66 1.87 A A
4 SB MN 25 None 9.36 9.36 6.50 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 29-Aug-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Design Year (2045) Scenario 2
Run number 30
Project: MN 25 & CSAH 372030 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2030 PM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 2020 2020
Capacity veh/hr 3761 3761
Average Delay sec/veh 9.08 9.08
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 5.09 5.09
37 Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis November 2025
Appendix H:
Design Year (2045) No-Build
SimTraffic Report
SimTraffic Performance Report
Design Year (2045) No-Build -AM Peak Hour 08/28/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)3.9 0.4 4.0 1.1 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.1 0.4 3.1
Total Del/Veh (s)32.2 27.7 2.5 29.7 28.9 2.5 8.8 3.7 0.6 6.5 12.0 1.6
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7
Total Del/Veh (s)9.9
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)2.7 7.4 1.6 3.2 7.7 2.1 1.0 0.7 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.1
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)2.1
4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)1.7 0.8 2.1 1.8 4.7 2.2 1.7
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.1 3.1 0.3 3.9 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)2.0 2.2 1.5 1.3 1.0 0.4 7.6 12.4 3.6 8.1 6.0 3.8
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4
Total Del/Veh (s)3.0
6: MN 25 & Future Roadway Performance by movement
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.5 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)21.8 4.4 1.6 0.7 7.1 5.5 3.8
SimTraffic Performance Report
Design Year (2045) No-Build -AM Peak Hour 08/28/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7
Total Del/Veh (s)14.5
Queuing and Blocking Report
Design Year (2045) No-Build -AM Peak Hour 08/28/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3
Intersection: 1: MN 25 & 85th St NE
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served L T L T L T T R L T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 123 34 74 52 9 81 90 12 38 201 159 23
Average Queue (ft)59 6 19 11 1 12 27 0 5 91 26 1
95th Queue (ft)104 24 50 36 6 48 70 1 21 167 108 9
Link Distance (ft)910 3490 813 813 1229 1229
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 375 300 500 500 550 500
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)54 49 10 5
Average Queue (ft)23 23 1 0
95th Queue (ft)46 45 7 3
Link Distance (ft)1038 1108 1056 1236
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave
Movement EB SB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft)25 51
Average Queue (ft)1 20
95th Queue (ft)12 46
Link Distance (ft)2117 1313
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
Design Year (2045) No-Build -AM Peak Hour 08/28/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4
Intersection: 5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37
Movement EB EB WB NB SB
Directions Served L R L LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)16 1 46 70 59
Average Queue (ft)1 0 7 32 25
95th Queue (ft)7 1 27 53 49
Link Distance (ft)604 1936
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300 300
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: MN 25 & Future Roadway
Movement WB SB
Directions Served LR L
Maximum Queue (ft)36 42
Average Queue (ft)10 7
95th Queue (ft)32 27
Link Distance (ft)1928
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)150
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report
Design Year (2045) No-Build -PM Peak Hour 08/28/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)4.0 0.3 4.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.5 2.9
Total Del/Veh (s)68.3 47.6 2.6 58.4 47.1 2.6 9.7 3.7 0.5 8.3 10.9 2.3
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6
Total Del/Veh (s)11.1
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)4.5 6.0 2.5 6.4 9.8 2.8 1.1 1.5 0.3 1.1 1.1 0.5
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)2.8
4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)2.0 1.1 2.2 1.6 5.7 2.6 1.8
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.0 0.1 3.2 0.5 3.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)3.4 3.6 2.3 2.7 1.6 0.4 14.3 18.3 9.1 10.9 6.2 4.9
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4
Total Del/Veh (s)5.5
6: MN 25 & Future Roadway Performance by movement
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.8 3.0 0.1 0.0 0.4
Total Del/Veh (s)32.3 6.4 1.6 0.3 9.4 6.0 3.9
SimTraffic Performance Report
Design Year (2045) No-Build -PM Peak Hour 08/28/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)16.3
Queuing and Blocking Report
Design Year (2045) No-Build -PM Peak Hour 08/28/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3
Intersection: 1: MN 25 & 85th St NE
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served L T L T L T T R L T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 131 63 101 132 55 108 114 16 34 216 177 28
Average Queue (ft)63 16 25 46 13 22 37 1 9 103 33 3
95th Queue (ft)119 46 69 104 37 65 88 8 25 177 117 15
Link Distance (ft)912 3490 823 823 1229 1229
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 375 300 500 500 550 500
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)54 78 27 25
Average Queue (ft)26 33 4 2
95th Queue (ft)47 56 19 13
Link Distance (ft)1038 1108 1056 1236
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave
Movement EB SB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft)15 47
Average Queue (ft)1 19
95th Queue (ft)11 42
Link Distance (ft)2117 1923
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
Design Year (2045) No-Build -PM Peak Hour 08/28/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4
Intersection: 5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37
Movement EB EB WB WB WB NB SB
Directions Served L R L T R LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)23 9 58 3 2 121 84
Average Queue (ft)2 0 18 0 0 60 37
95th Queue (ft)12 4 41 2 2 105 66
Link Distance (ft)1804 604 1936
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300 300 300
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: MN 25 & Future Roadway
Movement WB SB B3
Directions Served LR L T
Maximum Queue (ft)54 43 186
Average Queue (ft)19 13 7
95th Queue (ft)43 38 136
Link Distance (ft)1786 823
Upstream Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Storage Bay Dist (ft)250
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report
Design Year (2045) No-Build -AM Peak Hour 10/13/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.9 0.4 0.4 2.7 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)17.5 38.8 32.3 10.9 14.0 9.0 14.4 14.9 11.7 11.7 12.2 8.4
3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7
Total Del/Veh (s)20.0
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7
Total Del/Veh (s)22.6
Queuing and Blocking Report
Design Year (2045) No-Build -AM Peak Hour 10/13/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
Intersection: 3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard
Movement EB EB WB WB NB SB
Directions Served L TR L TR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 185 537 118 139 200 145
Average Queue (ft)23 165 58 69 77 63
95th Queue (ft)115 436 100 116 144 108
Link Distance (ft)1892 1581 1695 1502
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 150
Storage Blk Time (%)13 0 0
Queuing Penalty (veh)2 0 0
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 3
SimTraffic Performance Report
Design Year (2045) No-Build -PM Peak Hour 10/13/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)2.0 0.4 0.5 2.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)8.8 17.3 12.9 10.0 17.7 12.7 8.8 9.9 6.1 11.6 12.9 9.4
3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.5
Total Del/Veh (s)14.1
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.5
Total Del/Veh (s)17.1
Queuing and Blocking Report
Design Year (2045) No-Build -PM Peak Hour 10/13/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
Intersection: 3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard
Movement EB EB WB WB NB SB
Directions Served L TR L TR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)58 198 168 242 90 140
Average Queue (ft)26 95 40 99 51 75
95th Queue (ft)50 166 98 180 78 119
Link Distance (ft)2016 1561 1734 1497
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 225 150
Storage Blk Time (%)0 4
Queuing Penalty (veh)0 3
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 3
Page 1 of 2Report dated 28-Aug-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Design Year (2045) No-Build
Run number 32
Project: MN 25 & CSAH 372045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 AM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 EB CSAH 37 None 271 500 256 915 0.2962
2 NB MN 25 None 453 265 506 1034 0.4382
3 WB CSAH 37 None 281 498 220 916 0.3068
4 SB MN 25 None 570 186 593 1074 0.5309
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 EB CSAH 37 None 5.17 5.17 1.12 A A
2 NB MN 25 None 5.63 5.63 2.03 A A
3 WB CSAH 37 None 5.24 5.24 1.17 A A
4 SB MN 25 None 6.38 6.38 2.90 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 28-Aug-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Design Year (2045) No-Build
Run number 32
Project: MN 25 & CSAH 372045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 AM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1575 1575
Capacity veh/hr 3938 3938
Average Delay sec/veh 5.75 5.75
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 2.52 2.52
Page 1 of 2Report dated 28-Aug-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Design Year (2045) No-Build
Run number 34
Project: MN 25 & CSAH 372045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 PM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 EB CSAH 37 None 252 683 358 823 0.3063
2 NB MN 25 None 959 248 687 1042 0.9201
3 WB CSAH 37 None 292 866 340 730 0.3999
4 SB MN 25 None 759 282 876 1025 0.7404
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 EB CSAH 37 None 5.82 5.82 1.24 A A
2 NB MN 25 None 24.95 24.95 23.31 C C
3 WB CSAH 37 None 7.49 7.49 1.89 A A
4 SB MN 25 None 11.13 11.13 7.49 B B
Page 2 of 2Report dated 28-Aug-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Design Year (2045) No-Build
Run number 34
Project: MN 25 & CSAH 372045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 PM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 2262 2262
Capacity veh/hr 3620 3620
Average Delay sec/veh 15.93 15.93
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F B B
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F C C
Total Delay veh.hrs 10.01 10.01
Page 1 of 2Report dated 31-Oct-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Design Year (2045) No-Build
Run number 16
Project: Monticello AUAR - School Blvd & Fallon Ave2045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 AM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 SB Fallon Ave None 184 456 176 870 0.2115
2 EB School Blvd None 400 239 401 984 0.4065
3 NB Fallon Ave None 264 306 333 949 0.2783
4 WB School Blvd None 378 254 316 976 0.3872
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 SB Fallon Ave None 6.89 6.89 0.75 A A
2 EB School Blvd None 8.55 8.55 1.90 A A
3 NB Fallon Ave None 7.19 7.19 1.07 A A
4 WB School Blvd None 8.34 8.34 1.75 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 31-Oct-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Design Year (2045) No-Build
Run number 16
Project: Monticello AUAR - School Blvd & Fallon Ave2045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 AM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1226 1226
Capacity veh/hr 3779 3779
Average Delay sec/veh 6.95 6.95
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 2.37 2.37
Page 1 of 2Report dated 31-Oct-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Design Year (2045) No-Build
Run number 19
Project: Monticello AUAR - School Blvd & Fallon Ave2045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 PM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 SB Fallon Ave None 302 500 177 847 0.3567
2 EB School Blvd None 432 320 482 941 0.4589
3 NB Fallon Ave None 161 485 267 855 0.1884
4 WB School Blvd None 508 169 477 1021 0.4976
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 SB Fallon Ave None 8.76 8.76 1.50 A A
2 EB School Blvd None 9.58 9.58 2.26 A A
3 NB Fallon Ave None 6.68 6.68 0.63 A A
4 WB School Blvd None 9.67 9.67 2.60 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 31-Oct-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Design Year (2045) No-Build
Run number 19
Project: Monticello AUAR - School Blvd & Fallon Ave2045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 PM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1403 1403
Capacity veh/hr 3663 3663
Average Delay sec/veh 8.11 8.11
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 3.16 3.16
Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis November 2025
38
Appendix I:
Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 1
SimTraffic Report
SimTraffic Performance Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 1 -AM Peak Hour 08/28/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)3.9 0.4 3.9 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.5 2.8
Total Del/Veh (s)32.5 26.8 2.6 30.9 26.6 3.2 3.5 5.3 0.6 8.0 11.7 1.9
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7
Total Del/Veh (s)10.2
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)4.8 8.9 2.8 4.9 8.7 2.7 0.5 0.9 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.1
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)3.1
4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)1.7 0.7 2.3 1.7 5.6 3.2 1.8
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.5 3.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)2.7 2.5 1.4 1.4 1.3 0.3 8.6 12.9 4.1 9.0 7.5 3.6
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.5
Total Del/Veh (s)3.4
6: MN 25 & Future Roadway Performance by movement
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.5 2.0 0.1 0.0 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)10.2 3.2 1.5 0.7 7.2 5.6 3.7
SimTraffic Performance Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 1 -AM Peak Hour 08/28/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
8: North Access & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)1.7 1.0 3.7 2.5 5.4 3.2 2.7
9: Edmonson Ave & East Access Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)5.7 3.2 0.8 1.1 0.8 0.2 1.5
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)15.0
Queuing and Blocking Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 1 -AM Peak Hour 08/28/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3
Intersection: 1: MN 25 & 85th St NE
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served L T L T L T T R L T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 138 43 86 51 9 92 106 10 84 194 142 37
Average Queue (ft)60 7 28 11 0 23 32 1 23 86 20 3
95th Queue (ft)114 29 64 36 4 66 81 7 56 157 83 18
Link Distance (ft)910 2179 813 813 1229 1229
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 375 300 500 500 550 500
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)58 53 15 14
Average Queue (ft)32 29 1 1
95th Queue (ft)49 50 8 6
Link Distance (ft)2351 1108 1056 1236
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave
Movement EB SB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft)15 60
Average Queue (ft)1 19
95th Queue (ft)8 45
Link Distance (ft)2117 1313
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 1 -AM Peak Hour 08/28/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4
Intersection: 5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37
Movement EB EB WB NB SB
Directions Served L R L LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)22 4 33 64 93
Average Queue (ft)2 0 7 32 36
95th Queue (ft)13 2 24 54 65
Link Distance (ft)604 1936
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300 300
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: MN 25 & Future Roadway
Movement WB SB
Directions Served LR L
Maximum Queue (ft)26 46
Average Queue (ft)9 9
95th Queue (ft)27 31
Link Distance (ft)1928
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)150
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: North Access & 85th St NE
Movement WB NB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft)47 67
Average Queue (ft)4 33
95th Queue (ft)23 56
Link Distance (ft)2351 966
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 1 -AM Peak Hour 08/28/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5
Intersection: 9: Edmonson Ave & East Access
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft)74 31
Average Queue (ft)31 4
95th Queue (ft)56 19
Link Distance (ft)1116 1968
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 1 -PM Peak Hour 08/28/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)4.0 0.3 4.1 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.5 2.8
Total Del/Veh (s)66.8 47.4 2.9 65.8 59.9 3.4 10.7 4.5 0.4 9.2 11.7 2.1
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6
Total Del/Veh (s)12.3
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)6.6 8.5 3.0 6.4 10.4 4.8 1.4 1.7 0.3 1.3 1.5 0.5
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)3.5
4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)2.4 1.1 2.5 2.1 5.8 2.4 1.9
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.1 3.4 0.5 3.1 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)4.0 3.7 2.4 2.5 1.8 0.3 15.5 19.2 10.7 16.5 7.8 7.4
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.5
Total Del/Veh (s)6.2
6: MN 25 & Future Roadway Performance by movement
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.1 0.8 2.7 0.1 0.0 0.4
Total Del/Veh (s)36.9 8.1 1.6 0.3 10.5 6.2 4.1
SimTraffic Performance Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 1 -PM Peak Hour 08/28/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
8: North Access & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)1.7 1.4 3.2 2.8 5.5 3.2 3.1
9: Edmonson Ave & East Access Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)5.7 3.8 0.8 1.0 0.9 0.2 1.5
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)17.7
Queuing and Blocking Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 1 -PM Peak Hour 08/28/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3
Intersection: 1: MN 25 & 85th St NE
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served L T L T L T T R L T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 152 51 122 139 44 99 134 12 58 226 195 40
Average Queue (ft)65 16 43 54 12 28 42 1 16 116 51 4
95th Queue (ft)122 44 97 113 32 80 105 7 41 205 152 19
Link Distance (ft)912 2210 823 823 1230 1230
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 375 300 500 500 550 500
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)65 71 43 33
Average Queue (ft)32 34 5 3
95th Queue (ft)52 56 25 16
Link Distance (ft)2320 1108 1056 1236
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave
Movement EB SB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft)9 52
Average Queue (ft)0 21
95th Queue (ft)6 45
Link Distance (ft)2117 1923
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 1 -PM Peak Hour 08/28/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4
Intersection: 5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37
Movement EB EB WB NB SB
Directions Served L R L LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)16 9 55 139 118
Average Queue (ft)2 0 18 61 49
95th Queue (ft)11 5 43 111 91
Link Distance (ft)604 1936
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300 300
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: MN 25 & Future Roadway
Movement WB SB
Directions Served LR L
Maximum Queue (ft)63 44
Average Queue (ft)19 13
95th Queue (ft)47 37
Link Distance (ft)1786
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)250
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: North Access & 85th St NE
Movement WB NB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft)16 63
Average Queue (ft)1 35
95th Queue (ft)8 55
Link Distance (ft)2320 1025
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 1 -PM Peak Hour 08/28/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5
Intersection: 9: Edmonson Ave & East Access
Movement EB NB
Directions Served LR LT
Maximum Queue (ft)65 27
Average Queue (ft)34 2
95th Queue (ft)56 14
Link Distance (ft)846 1969
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
Page 1 of 2Report dated 28-Aug-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Design Year (2045) Scenario 1
Run number 13
Project: MN 25 & CSAH 372045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 AM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 EB CSAH 37 None 271 685 187 822 0.3299
2 NB MN 25 None 480 265 691 1034 0.4644
3 WB CSAH 37 None 279 516 229 907 0.3076
4 SB MN 25 None 588 284 511 1024 0.5742
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 EB CSAH 37 None 6.03 6.03 1.49 A A
2 NB MN 25 None 5.88 5.88 2.52 A A
3 WB CSAH 37 None 5.29 5.29 1.31 A A
4 SB MN 25 None 7.32 7.32 3.97 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 28-Aug-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Design Year (2045) Scenario 1
Run number 13
Project: MN 25 & CSAH 372045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 AM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1618 1618
Capacity veh/hr 3786 3786
Average Delay sec/veh 6.32 6.32
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 2.84 2.84
Page 1 of 2Report dated 28-Aug-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Design Year (2045) Scenario 1
Run number 15
Project: MN 25 & CSAH 372045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 PM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 EB CSAH 37 None 252 711 358 809 0.3117
2 NB MN 25 None 971 248 715 1042 0.9316
3 WB CSAH 37 None 301 871 343 727 0.4138
4 SB MN 25 None 778 291 881 1021 0.7623
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 EB CSAH 37 None 5.97 5.97 1.37 A A
2 NB MN 25 None 28.85 28.85 34.09 D D
3 WB CSAH 37 None 7.70 7.70 2.14 A A
4 SB MN 25 None 12.28 12.28 9.77 B B
Page 2 of 2Report dated 28-Aug-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Design Year (2045) Scenario 1
Run number 15
Project: MN 25 & CSAH 372045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 PM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 2302 2302
Capacity veh/hr 3599 3599
Average Delay sec/veh 17.98 17.98
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F B B
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F C C
Total Delay veh.hrs 11.50 11.50
39 Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis November 2025
Appendix J:
Design Year (2045) Build Scenario 2
SimTraffic Report
SimTraffic Performance Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 -AM Peak Hour 08/29/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)4.0 0.4 4.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.9 2.5
Total Del/Veh (s)31.2 23.9 2.6 28.7 34.1 5.3 13.0 9.7 2.6 26.2 16.9 2.2
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.0
Total Del/Veh (s)15.7
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)8.9 11.9 5.9 10.4 14.0 10.6 1.5 1.5 0.2 0.9 2.7 0.5
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)6.7
4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)3.8 1.3 4.4 2.8 7.2 4.5 3.1
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.8 3.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)4.8 3.2 2.6 2.0 2.3 0.8 15.8 17.6 5.8 13.3 10.2 7.3
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)4.3
6: MN 25 & Future Roadway (West Access) Performance by movement
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.2 0.7 2.3 0.1 0.0 0.4
Total Del/Veh (s)33.8 13.5 3.3 1.1 13.2 8.4 7.0
SimTraffic Performance Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 -AM Peak Hour 08/29/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
8: North Access & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)6.7 4.1 10.1 8.2 20.1 11.4 8.2
9: Edmonson Ave & East Access Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)14.4 5.5 5.1 5.4 4.7 1.4 4.6
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.0
Total Del/Veh (s)22.3
Queuing and Blocking Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 -AM Peak Hour 08/29/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3
Intersection: 1: MN 25 & 85th St NE
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served L T L T L T T R L T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 121 38 92 47 21 118 132 42 326 248 223 39
Average Queue (ft)54 8 30 13 1 53 57 9 144 130 60 4
95th Queue (ft)100 29 68 41 10 100 107 29 275 211 172 23
Link Distance (ft)910 2179 813 813 1229 1229
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 375 300 500 500 550 500
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 100 153 55 18
Average Queue (ft)44 65 7 1
95th Queue (ft)76 110 34 9
Link Distance (ft)2351 1108 1056 1236
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave
Movement EB WB SB
Directions Served LT TR LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 110 4 87
Average Queue (ft)8 0 34
95th Queue (ft)51 3 68
Link Distance (ft)2117 4079 1313
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 -AM Peak Hour 08/29/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4
Intersection: 5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37
Movement EB WB WB NB SB
Directions Served L L R LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)63 35 12 89 104
Average Queue (ft)18 9 1 35 46
95th Queue (ft)45 28 5 65 84
Link Distance (ft)604 1936
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300 300
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: MN 25 & Future Roadway (West Access)
Movement WB NB NB SB
Directions Served LR T R L
Maximum Queue (ft) 166 9 9 113
Average Queue (ft)61 0 0 53
95th Queue (ft)122 5 3 98
Link Distance (ft)1928 2309
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)275 150
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 8: North Access & 85th St NE
Movement EB WB NB
Directions Served TR LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft)53 138 227
Average Queue (ft)8 54 95
95th Queue (ft)31 103 181
Link Distance (ft)2179 2351 966
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 -AM Peak Hour 08/29/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5
Intersection: 9: Edmonson Ave & East Access
Movement EB NB SB
Directions Served LR LT TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 136 112 36
Average Queue (ft)53 42 4
95th Queue (ft)102 84 20
Link Distance (ft)1116 1968 1807
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 -PM Peak Hour 09/11/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)3.9 0.4 3.9 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.6 2.6
Total Del/Veh (s)73.1 55.1 3.3 63.6 46.4 9.0 12.8 7.8 1.2 17.2 13.4 2.4
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.6
Total Del/Veh (s)14.8
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)19.5 20.3 12.0 12.2 14.9 7.8 2.8 2.9 1.0 2.6 2.1 0.7
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)7.9
4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)2.8 2.0 3.5 2.4 11.9 9.2 4.2
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.1 3.1 0.6 3.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)4.7 4.9 2.9 3.6 2.5 0.5 45.0 42.6 35.4 89.9 35.1 83.7
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4
Total Del/Veh (s)23.1
6: MN 25 & Future Roadway (West Access) Performance by movement
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 38.9 38.6 0.9 3.1 0.0 0.0 4.9
Total Del/Veh (s)537.1 509.2 3.8 1.0 18.7 8.4 64.2
SimTraffic Performance Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 -PM Peak Hour 09/11/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
8: North Access & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)3.8 2.2 4.1 4.0 24.7 20.4 14.6
9: Edmonson Ave & East Access Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)14.1 10.9 1.8 2.4 0.4 7.3
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)2.6
Total Del/Veh (s)53.5
Queuing and Blocking Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 -PM Peak Hour 09/11/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3
Intersection: 1: MN 25 & 85th St NE
Movement EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served L T L T R L T T R L T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 180 60 169 186 273 50 158 166 24 155 245 214
Average Queue (ft)71 16 86 49 56 13 70 72 3 59 135 66
95th Queue (ft)140 46 148 121 200 35 141 143 13 117 227 177
Link Distance (ft)912 2210 823 823 1230 1230
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 375 300 300 500 500 550
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Intersection: 1: MN 25 & 85th St NE
Movement SB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft)34
Average Queue (ft)5
95th Queue (ft)19
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 500
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 238 127 55 46
Average Queue (ft)80 52 8 7
95th Queue (ft)188 96 32 30
Link Distance (ft)2320 1108 1056 1236
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 -PM Peak Hour 09/11/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4
Intersection: 4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave
Movement EB WB SB
Directions Served LT TR LR
Maximum Queue (ft)73 8 151
Average Queue (ft)8 0 58
95th Queue (ft)43 6 108
Link Distance (ft)2117 4079 1923
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37
Movement EB EB EB WB WB NB SB
Directions Served L T R L R LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)43 2 9 60 8 242 463
Average Queue (ft)9 0 0 20 0 98 222
95th Queue (ft)30 2 5 44 3 200 500
Link Distance (ft)4079 604 1936
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300 300 300
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: MN 25 & Future Roadway (West Access)
Movement WB NB SB B3 B3
Directions Served LR T L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 1643 13 119 37 39
Average Queue (ft)946 1 49 1 1
95th Queue (ft)1909 8 99 14 14
Link Distance (ft)1786 1198 823 823
Upstream Blk Time (%) 13
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft)250
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 -PM Peak Hour 09/11/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5
Intersection: 8: North Access & 85th St NE
Movement EB WB NB
Directions Served TR LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft)14 47 530
Average Queue (ft)1 8 189
95th Queue (ft)8 30 429
Link Distance (ft)2210 2320 1025
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 9: Edmonson Ave & East Access
Movement EB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 235
Average Queue (ft)109
95th Queue (ft)197
Link Distance (ft)846
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 -AM Peak Hour 10/14/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s) 17.3 19.1 23.4 85.1 85.0 79.9 3.3 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)137.3 233.2 217.7 172.6 95.8 91.2 14.1 15.8 11.1 16.6 16.3 12.1
3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 43.9
Total Del/Veh (s)123.8
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)43.9
Total Del/Veh (s)125.4
Queuing and Blocking Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 -AM Peak Hour 10/14/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
Intersection: 3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L TR L TR L TR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 450 1552 450 1348 105 135 137
Average Queue (ft)97 764 364 794 50 65 67
95th Queue (ft)389 1625 578 1707 87 107 110
Link Distance (ft)1504 1292 966 918
Upstream Blk Time (%)14 36
Queuing Penalty (veh)0 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 400 400 200
Storage Blk Time (%)60 61 2
Queuing Penalty (veh)9 216 9
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 235
SimTraffic Performance Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 -PM Peak Hour 10/14/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s) 153.5 155.4 151.2 2.8 0.7 0.8 2.8 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)226.9 345.4 329.3 14.1 36.7 32.3 20.5 44.4 43.5 26.2 28.9 21.4
3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s) 46.5
Total Del/Veh (s)114.5
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)46.5
Total Del/Veh (s)116.3
Queuing and Blocking Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 -PM Peak Hour 10/14/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
Intersection: 3: Fallon Avenue & School Boulevard
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB
Directions Served L TR L TR L TR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 450 1446 106 369 225 446 234
Average Queue (ft)251 1167 51 176 69 188 112
95th Queue (ft)614 1802 85 303 203 374 199
Link Distance (ft)1401 1493 1054 918
Upstream Blk Time (%)56
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 400 400 200
Storage Blk Time (%)90 0 0 22
Queuing Penalty (veh)38 0 0 12
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 50
Page 1 of 2Report dated 29-Aug-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Design Year (2045) Scenario 2
Run number 19
Project: MN 25 & CSAH 372045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 AM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 EB CSAH 37 None 271 715 187 803 0.3377
2 NB MN 25 None 665 265 721 1014 0.6556
3 WB CSAH 37 None 300 632 298 785 0.3822
4 SB MN 25 None 597 305 627 1008 0.5924
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 EB CSAH 37 None 6.24 6.24 1.55 A A
2 NB MN 25 None 8.71 8.71 5.50 A A
3 WB CSAH 37 None 6.42 6.42 1.75 A A
4 SB MN 25 None 7.74 7.74 4.32 A A
Page 2 of 2Report dated 29-Aug-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Design Year (2045) Scenario 2
Run number 19
Project: MN 25 & CSAH 372045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 AM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1833 1833
Capacity veh/hr 3609 3609
Average Delay sec/veh 7.65 7.65
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F A A
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F A A
Total Delay veh.hrs 3.90 3.90
Page 1 of 2Report dated 29-Aug-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Design Year (2045) Scenario 2
Run number 22
Project: MN 25 & CSAH 372045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 PM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 EB CSAH 37 None 252 886 357 721 0.3493
2 NB MN 25 None 1020 248 890 1083 0.9422
3 WB CSAH 37 None 371 896 365 695 0.5337
4 SB MN 25 None 885 361 906 1041 0.8505
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 EB CSAH 37 None 7.00 7.00 1.64 A A
2 NB MN 25 None 35.73 35.73 45.00 E E
3 WB CSAH 37 None 9.57 9.57 3.35 A A
4 SB MN 25 None 20.89 20.89 21.74 C C
Page 2 of 2Report dated 29-Aug-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Design Year (2045) Scenario 2
Run number 22
Project: MN 25 & CSAH 372045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 PM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 2528 2528
Capacity veh/hr 3540 3540
Average Delay sec/veh 23.83 23.83
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F C C
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F C C
Total Delay veh.hrs 16.74 16.74
Page 1 of 2Report dated 14-Oct-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Design Year (2045) Scenario 2
Run number 18
Project: Monticello AUAR - School Blvd & Fallon Ave2045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 AM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 SB Fallon Ave None 186 850 179 662 0.2810
2 EB School Blvd None 420 502 535 846 0.4966
3 NB Fallon Ave None 329 324 598 939 0.3503
4 WB School Blvd None 768 262 391 972 0.7902
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 SB Fallon Ave None 9.34 9.34 1.15 A A
2 EB School Blvd None 10.96 10.96 2.81 B B
3 NB Fallon Ave None 8.08 8.08 1.50 A A
4 WB School Blvd None 18.78 18.78 10.21 C C
Page 2 of 2Report dated 14-Oct-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Design Year (2045) Scenario 2
Run number 18
Project: Monticello AUAR - School Blvd & Fallon Ave2045 AM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 AM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1703 1703
Capacity veh/hr 3419 3419
Average Delay sec/veh 12.75 12.75
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F B B
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F B B
Total Delay veh.hrs 6.03 6.03
Page 1 of 2Report dated 14-Oct-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Design Year (2045) Scenario 2
Run number 21
Project: Monticello AUAR - School Blvd & Fallon Ave2045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Operational Results
2045 PM Peak - 60 minutes
Flows and Capacity
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Flows (veh/hr)
Arrival Flow
Entry Bypass
Opposing Flow
Entry Bypass
Exit
Flow
Capacity (veh/hr)
Capacity
Entry Bypass
Average VCR
Entry Bypass
1 SB Fallon Ave None 308 605 181 791 0.3892
2 EB School Blvd None 557 398 515 900 0.6187
3 NB Fallon Ave None 416 605 350 791 0.5257
4 WB School Blvd None 610 176 845 1017 0.5997
Delays, Queues and Level of Service
Leg Leg Names Bypass
Type
Average Delay (sec)
Entry Bypass Leg
95% Queue (veh)
Entry Bypass
Level of Service
Entry Bypass Leg
1 SB Fallon Ave None 9.66 9.66 1.74 A A
2 EB School Blvd None 13.06 13.06 4.27 B B
3 NB Fallon Ave None 12.06 12.06 3.01 B B
4 WB School Blvd None 11.60 11.60 3.88 B B
Page 2 of 2Report dated 14-Oct-2025
Rodel Version 1.96
Scheme: Design Year (2045) Scenario 2
Run number 21
Project: Monticello AUAR - School Blvd & Fallon Ave2045 PM Peak
50% Confidence Level
Daylight conditions Rodel-Win1 - Full Geometry
Global Results
Performance and Accidents
2045 PM Peak Global Performance
Parameter Units Entries Bypasses Total
Arrive Flows veh/hr 1891 1891
Capacity veh/hr 3500 3500
Average Delay sec/veh 10.81 10.81
L.O.S. (Signal)A – F B B
L.O.S. (Unsig)A – F B B
Total Delay veh.hrs 5.68 5.68
Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis November 2025
40
Appendix K:
Mitigated Design Year (2045) Build
Scenario 2 SimTraffic Report
SimTraffic Performance Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 MITIGATED -AM Peak Hour 08/29/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)3.9 0.3 3.8 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.9 2.6
Total Del/Veh (s)33.0 23.0 2.4 32.6 27.9 5.0 7.6 9.5 2.5 22.9 15.8 2.1
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.0
Total Del/Veh (s)14.8
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)7.8 11.9 5.9 10.5 14.0 9.8 1.6 1.6 0.2 1.7 2.5 0.6
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)6.7
4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)3.3 1.4 5.1 2.9 8.0 5.3 3.5
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.8 3.0 3.9 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)5.1 3.4 2.2 2.3 2.2 0.7 14.8 16.6 5.2 13.6 8.9 5.0
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.8
Total Del/Veh (s)4.1
6: MN 25 & Future Roadway (West Access) Performance by movement
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)2.8 0.2 0.7 2.3 0.1 0.0 0.4
Total Del/Veh (s)45.9 10.9 3.2 1.1 14.6 7.9 6.8
SimTraffic Performance Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 MITIGATED -AM Peak Hour 08/29/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
8: North Access & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)6.6 3.6 10.0 8.0 18.4 10.7 7.8
9: Edmonson Ave & East Access Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)10.6 4.4 4.8 5.5 4.9 1.3 4.1
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.0
Total Del/Veh (s)21.3
Queuing and Blocking Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 MITIGATED -AM Peak Hour 08/29/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3
Intersection: 1: MN 25 & 85th St NE
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB SB
Directions Served L T L T L T T R L T T R
Maximum Queue (ft) 149 33 74 47 17 154 130 54 275 238 177 29
Average Queue (ft)64 5 30 11 2 52 62 8 126 116 49 3
95th Queue (ft)120 23 67 36 9 110 122 29 231 199 143 15
Link Distance (ft)910 2179 813 813 1229 1229
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 375 300 500 500 550 500
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft)79 127 64 25
Average Queue (ft)43 63 5 1
95th Queue (ft)71 108 32 11
Link Distance (ft)2351 1108 1056 1236
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave
Movement EB WB SB
Directions Served LT TR LR
Maximum Queue (ft)98 15 97
Average Queue (ft)9 1 36
95th Queue (ft)48 9 76
Link Distance (ft)2117 4073 1313
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 MITIGATED -AM Peak Hour 08/29/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4
Intersection: 5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37
Movement EB WB WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served L L T R L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft)54 46 3 13 43 76 63 82
Average Queue (ft)16 9 0 1 8 36 18 36
95th Queue (ft)40 32 2 5 30 65 45 70
Link Distance (ft)1797 606 1934
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300 300 250 250
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6: MN 25 & Future Roadway (West Access)
Movement WB WB NB NB SB SB B14
Directions Served L R T R L T T
Maximum Queue (ft)53 114 4 9 148 86 22
Average Queue (ft)10 45 0 0 56 5 1
95th Queue (ft)33 92 3 6 110 56 12
Link Distance (ft)1922 2309 4821 813
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 275 150
Storage Blk Time (%)1 0
Queuing Penalty (veh)4 0
Intersection: 8: North Access & 85th St NE
Movement EB WB NB
Directions Served TR LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft)47 139 206
Average Queue (ft)8 51 80
95th Queue (ft)32 99 146
Link Distance (ft)2179 2351 966
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 MITIGATED -AM Peak Hour 08/29/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5
Intersection: 9: Edmonson Ave & East Access
Movement EB NB SB
Directions Served LR LT TR
Maximum Queue (ft) 111 113 22
Average Queue (ft)47 42 4
95th Queue (ft)84 87 18
Link Distance (ft)1116 1968 1807
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 4
SimTraffic Performance Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 MITIGATED -PM Peak Hour 08/29/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 1
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)3.9 0.3 4.0 2.7 0.7 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.7 2.6
Total Del/Veh (s)66.3 53.8 2.9 64.8 57.3 10.2 12.8 8.3 1.2 17.4 12.7 2.3
1: MN 25 & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.0
Total Del/Veh (s)14.4
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)16.3 19.1 12.7 11.5 14.7 9.0 2.7 2.8 1.0 1.9 2.0 0.5
2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)7.5
4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)2.4 2.0 3.5 2.8 11.7 8.4 4.2
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.6 3.4 3.9 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)5.7 5.0 2.7 4.3 2.4 0.4 24.8 54.2 40.4 52.8 9.7 8.5
5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37 Performance by movement
Movement All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.5
Total Del/Veh (s)14.2
6: MN 25 & Future Roadway (West Access) Performance by movement
Movement WBL WBR NBT NBR SBL SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)2.8 0.3 0.9 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.5
Total Del/Veh (s)321.3 53.3 4.4 1.1 29.1 7.9 20.9
SimTraffic Performance Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 MITIGATED -PM Peak Hour 08/29/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 2
8: North Access & 85th St NE Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)3.7 2.4 3.7 2.9 4.2 3.4
9: Edmonson Ave & East Access Performance by movement
Movement EBL EBR NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)14.5 11.3 1.9 2.5 0.4 7.5
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.0
Total Del/Veh (s)31.2
Queuing and Blocking Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 MITIGATED -PM Peak Hour 08/29/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 3
Intersection: 1: MN 25 & 85th St NE
Movement EB EB WB WB WB NB NB NB NB SB SB SB
Directions Served L T L T R L T T R L T T
Maximum Queue (ft) 143 67 170 117 308 42 178 178 22 159 210 201
Average Queue (ft)60 18 85 43 87 13 78 75 2 66 128 64
95th Queue (ft)117 49 157 95 265 33 156 151 12 133 203 170
Link Distance (ft)912 2210 823 823 1230 1230
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 375 300 300 500 500 550
Storage Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)1
Intersection: 1: MN 25 & 85th St NE
Movement SB
Directions Served R
Maximum Queue (ft)45
Average Queue (ft)5
95th Queue (ft)21
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 500
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 2: Edmonson Ave & 85th St NE
Movement EB WB NB SB
Directions Served LTR LTR LTR LTR
Maximum Queue (ft) 196 117 36 48
Average Queue (ft)80 49 5 5
95th Queue (ft)154 87 23 22
Link Distance (ft)2320 1108 1056 1236
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Queuing and Blocking Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 MITIGATED -PM Peak Hour 08/29/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 4
Intersection: 4: CSAH 37 & Davidson Ave
Movement EB WB SB
Directions Served LT TR LR
Maximum Queue (ft)60 6 127
Average Queue (ft)6 0 56
95th Queue (ft)32 5 99
Link Distance (ft)2117 4073 1923
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 5: Edmonson Ave & CSAH 37
Movement EB EB WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served L R L R L TR L TR
Maximum Queue (ft)40 8 60 5 115 266 220 151
Average Queue (ft)7 0 23 0 28 100 84 57
95th Queue (ft)27 5 49 4 98 213 173 108
Link Distance (ft)606 1934
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 300 300 300 300 250 250
Storage Blk Time (%)3 1 0
Queuing Penalty (veh)1 1 0
Intersection: 6: MN 25 & Future Roadway (West Access)
Movement WB WB NB NB SB SB
Directions Served L R T R L T
Maximum Queue (ft) 285 434 4 4 204 66
Average Queue (ft)142 160 0 0 64 0
95th Queue (ft)297 389 3 4 147 0
Link Distance (ft)1780 1198 4808
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 250 250 250
Storage Blk Time (%) 13 7 0
Queuing Penalty (veh)24 5 3
Queuing and Blocking Report
Design Year (2045) Scenario 2 MITIGATED -PM Peak Hour 08/29/2025
Monticello Industrial SimTraffic Report
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.Page 5
Intersection: 8: North Access & 85th St NE
Movement WB NB
Directions Served LT LR
Maximum Queue (ft)67 79
Average Queue (ft)9 45
95th Queue (ft)40 70
Link Distance (ft)2320 1025
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 9: Edmonson Ave & East Access
Movement EB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 233
Average Queue (ft)112
95th Queue (ft)195
Link Distance (ft)846
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 35
41 Monticello Industrial │Traffic Impact Analysis November 2025
Appendix L:
Turn Lane Warrant Analysis
Figure 2 - 5. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
2-lane roadway (English)
INPUT
Value
55
29%
157
117
OUTPUT
Value
263
CALIBRATION CONSTANTS
Value
3.0
5.0
1.9
Critical headway, s:
Average time for left-turn vehicle to clear the advancing lane, s:
Limiting advancing volume (VA), veh/h:
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay:
Left-turn treatment NOT warranted.
Average time for making left-turn, s:
Advancing volume (VA), veh/h:
Opposing volume (VO), veh/h:
Variable
Variable
Variable
85th percentile speed, mph:
Percent of left-turns in advancing volume (VA), %:
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700Op
p
o
s
i
n
g
V
o
l
u
m
e
(
V
O),
v
e
h
/
h
Advancing Volume (VA), veh/h
Left-turn treatment
warranted.
Left-turn
treatment not
warranted.
Edmonson Avenue & East Access NBL - 2045 Scenario 1 (AM Peak)
Figure 2 - 5. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
2-lane roadway (English)
INPUT
Value
55
70%
284
329
OUTPUT
Value
205
CALIBRATION CONSTANTS
Value
3.0
5.0
1.9
Advancing volume (VA), veh/h:
Opposing volume (VO), veh/h:
Variable
Variable
Variable
85th percentile speed, mph:
Percent of left-turns in advancing volume (VA), %:
Critical headway, s:
Average time for left-turn vehicle to clear the advancing lane, s:
Limiting advancing volume (VA), veh/h:
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay:
Left-turn treatment warranted.
Average time for making left-turn, s:
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700Op
p
o
s
i
n
g
V
o
l
u
m
e
(
V
O),
v
e
h
/
h
Advancing Volume (VA), veh/h
Left-turn treatment
warranted.
Left-turn
treatment not
warranted.
Edmonson Avenue & East Access - 2030 Scenario 2 (AM Peak)
Figure 2 - 6. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road right-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
INPUT
Value
55
99
36
OUTPUT
Value
55
right-turn bay for a 2-lane roadway:
Do NOT add right-turn bay.
Roadway geometry:
Variable
Variable
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road
Major-road speed, mph:
Major-road volume (one direction), veh/h:
Right-turn volume, veh/h:
Limiting right-turn volume, veh/h:
2-lane roadw ay
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Ri
g
h
t
-
T
u
r
n
V
o
l
u
m
e
,
v
e
h
/
h
Major-Road Volume (one direction), veh/h
Add right - turn bay
Edmonson Avenue & East Access SBR - 2030 Scenario 1 (AM Peak)
Figure 2 - 6. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road right-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
INPUT
Value
55
117
36
OUTPUT
Value
49
right-turn bay for a 2-lane roadway:
Do NOT add right-turn bay.
Roadway geometry:
Variable
Variable
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road
Major-road speed, mph:
Major-road volume (one direction), veh/h:
Right-turn volume, veh/h:
Limiting right-turn volume, veh/h:
2-lane roadw ay
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Ri
g
h
t
-
T
u
r
n
V
o
l
u
m
e
,
v
e
h
/
h
Major-Road Volume (one direction), veh/h
Add right - turn bay
Edmonson Avenue & East Access SBR - 2045 Scenario 1 (AM Peak)
Figure 2 - 6. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road right-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
INPUT
Value
55
329
266
OUTPUT
Value
22
right-turn bay for a 2-lane roadway:
Add right-turn bay.
Roadway geometry:
Variable
Variable
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road
Major-road speed, mph:
Major-road volume (one direction), veh/h:
Right-turn volume, veh/h:
Limiting right-turn volume, veh/h:
2-lane roadw ay
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Ri
g
h
t
-
T
u
r
n
V
o
l
u
m
e
,
v
e
h
/
h
Major-Road Volume (one direction), veh/h
Add right - turn bay
Edmonson Avenue & East Access SBR - 2030 Scenario 2 (AM Peak)
Figure 2 - 5. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
2-lane roadway (English)
INPUT
Value
55
23%
407
165
OUTPUT
Value
268
CALIBRATION CONSTANTS
Value
3.0
5.0
1.9
Critical headway, s:
Average time for left-turn vehicle to clear the advancing lane, s:
Limiting advancing volume (VA), veh/h:
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay:
Left-turn treatment warranted.
Average time for making left-turn, s:
Advancing volume (VA), veh/h:
Opposing volume (VO), veh/h:
Variable
Variable
Variable
85th percentile speed, mph:
Percent of left-turns in advancing volume (VA), %:
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700Op
p
o
s
i
n
g
V
o
l
u
m
e
(
V
O),
v
e
h
/
h
Advancing Volume (VA), veh/h
Left-turn treatment
warranted.
Left-turn
treatment not
warranted.
Edmonson Avenue & 85th Street NBL - 2030 Scenario 2 (PM Peak)
Figure 2 - 5. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
2-lane roadway (English)
INPUT
Value
55
14%
199
194
OUTPUT
Value
315
CALIBRATION CONSTANTS
Value
3.0
5.0
1.9
Critical headway, s:
Average time for left-turn vehicle to clear the advancing lane, s:
Limiting advancing volume (VA), veh/h:
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay:
Left-turn treatment NOT warranted.
Average time for making left-turn, s:
Advancing volume (VA), veh/h:
Opposing volume (VO), veh/h:
Variable
Variable
Variable
85th percentile speed, mph:
Percent of left-turns in advancing volume (VA), %:
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700Op
p
o
s
i
n
g
V
o
l
u
m
e
(
V
O),
v
e
h
/
h
Advancing Volume (VA), veh/h
Left-turn treatment
warranted.
Left-turn
treatment not
warranted.
Edmonson Avenue & 85th Street NBL - 2045 No-Build (PM Peak)
Figure 2 - 5. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
2-lane roadway (English)
INPUT
Value
55
15%
236
182
OUTPUT
Value
310
CALIBRATION CONSTANTS
Value
3.0
5.0
1.9
Critical headway, s:
Average time for left-turn vehicle to clear the advancing lane, s:
Limiting advancing volume (VA), veh/h:
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay:
Left-turn treatment NOT warranted.
Average time for making left-turn, s:
Advancing volume (VA), veh/h:
Opposing volume (VO), veh/h:
Variable
Variable
Variable
85th percentile speed, mph:
Percent of left-turns in advancing volume (VA), %:
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700Op
p
o
s
i
n
g
V
o
l
u
m
e
(
V
O),
v
e
h
/
h
Advancing Volume (VA), veh/h
Left-turn treatment
warranted.
Left-turn
treatment not
warranted.
Edmonson Avenue & 85th Street NBL - 2045 Scenario 1 (PM Peak)
Figure 2 - 6. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road right-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
INPUT
Value
55
192
38
OUTPUT
Value
33
right-turn bay for a 2-lane roadway:
Add right-turn bay.
Roadway geometry:
Variable
Variable
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road
Major-road speed, mph:
Major-road volume (one direction), veh/h:
Right-turn volume, veh/h:
Limiting right-turn volume, veh/h:
2-lane roadw ay
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Ri
g
h
t
-
T
u
r
n
V
o
l
u
m
e
,
v
e
h
/
h
Major-Road Volume (one direction), veh/h
Add right - turn bay
Edmonson Avenue & 85th Street NBR - 2030 Scenario 1 (PM Peak)
Figure 2 - 6. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road right-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
INPUT
Value
55
199
24
OUTPUT
Value
32
right-turn bay for a 2-lane roadway:
Do NOT add right-turn bay.
Roadway geometry:
Variable
Variable
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road
Major-road speed, mph:
Major-road volume (one direction), veh/h:
Right-turn volume, veh/h:
Limiting right-turn volume, veh/h:
2-lane roadw ay
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Ri
g
h
t
-
T
u
r
n
V
o
l
u
m
e
,
v
e
h
/
h
Major-Road Volume (one direction), veh/h
Add right - turn bay
Edmonson Avenue & 85th Street NBR - 2045 No-Build (PM Peak)
Figure 2 - 5. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
2-lane roadway (English)
INPUT
Value
55
10%
194
172
OUTPUT
Value
374
CALIBRATION CONSTANTS
Value
3.0
5.0
1.9
Critical headway, s:
Average time for left-turn vehicle to clear the advancing lane, s:
Limiting advancing volume (VA), veh/h:
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay:
Left-turn treatment NOT warranted.
Average time for making left-turn, s:
Advancing volume (VA), veh/h:
Opposing volume (VO), veh/h:
Variable
Variable
Variable
85th percentile speed, mph:
Percent of left-turns in advancing volume (VA), %:
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700Op
p
o
s
i
n
g
V
o
l
u
m
e
(
V
O),
v
e
h
/
h
Advancing Volume (VA), veh/h
Left-turn treatment
warranted.
Left-turn
treatment not
warranted.
Edmonson Avenue & 85th Street SBL - 2045 No-Build (PM Peak)
Figure 2 - 5. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
2-lane roadway (English)
INPUT
Value
55
10%
202
200
OUTPUT
Value
362
CALIBRATION CONSTANTS
Value
3.0
5.0
1.9
Critical headway, s:
Average time for left-turn vehicle to clear the advancing lane, s:
Limiting advancing volume (VA), veh/h:
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay:
Left-turn treatment NOT warranted.
Average time for making left-turn, s:
Advancing volume (VA), veh/h:
Opposing volume (VO), veh/h:
Variable
Variable
Variable
85th percentile speed, mph:
Percent of left-turns in advancing volume (VA), %:
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700Op
p
o
s
i
n
g
V
o
l
u
m
e
(
V
O),
v
e
h
/
h
Advancing Volume (VA), veh/h
Left-turn treatment
warranted.
Left-turn
treatment not
warranted.
Edmonson Avenue & 85th Street SBL - 2045 Scenario 1 (PM Peak)
Figure 2 - 5. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
2-lane roadway (English)
INPUT
Value
55
9%
224
352
OUTPUT
Value
321
CALIBRATION CONSTANTS
Value
3.0
5.0
1.9
Critical headway, s:
Average time for left-turn vehicle to clear the advancing lane, s:
Limiting advancing volume (VA), veh/h:
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay:
Left-turn treatment NOT warranted.
Average time for making left-turn, s:
Advancing volume (VA), veh/h:
Opposing volume (VO), veh/h:
Variable
Variable
Variable
85th percentile speed, mph:
Percent of left-turns in advancing volume (VA), %:
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700Op
p
o
s
i
n
g
V
o
l
u
m
e
(
V
O),
v
e
h
/
h
Advancing Volume (VA), veh/h
Left-turn treatment
warranted.
Left-turn
treatment not
warranted.
Edmonson Avenue & 85th Street SBL - 2045 Scenario 2 (PM Peak)
Figure 2 - 6. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road right-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
INPUT
Value
55
180
28
OUTPUT
Value
35
right-turn bay for a 2-lane roadway:
Do NOT add right-turn bay.
Roadway geometry:
Variable
Variable
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road
Major-road speed, mph:
Major-road volume (one direction), veh/h:
Right-turn volume, veh/h:
Limiting right-turn volume, veh/h:
2-lane roadw ay
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Ri
g
h
t
-
T
u
r
n
V
o
l
u
m
e
,
v
e
h
/
h
Major-Road Volume (one direction), veh/h
Add right - turn bay
Edmonson Avenue & 85th Street SBR - 2030 Scenario 2 (PM Peak)
Figure 2 - 6. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road right-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
INPUT
Value
55
202
21
OUTPUT
Value
32
right-turn bay for a 2-lane roadway:
Do NOT add right-turn bay.
Roadway geometry:
Variable
Variable
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road
Major-road speed, mph:
Major-road volume (one direction), veh/h:
Right-turn volume, veh/h:
Limiting right-turn volume, veh/h:
2-lane roadw ay
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Ri
g
h
t
-
T
u
r
n
V
o
l
u
m
e
,
v
e
h
/
h
Major-Road Volume (one direction), veh/h
Add right - turn bay
Edmonson Avenue & 85th Street SBR - 2045 Scenario 1 (PM Peak)
Figure 2 - 6. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road right-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
INPUT
Value
55
224
32
OUTPUT
Value
29
right-turn bay for a 2-lane roadway:
Add right-turn bay.
Roadway geometry:
Variable
Variable
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road
Major-road speed, mph:
Major-road volume (one direction), veh/h:
Right-turn volume, veh/h:
Limiting right-turn volume, veh/h:
2-lane roadw ay
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Ri
g
h
t
-
T
u
r
n
V
o
l
u
m
e
,
v
e
h
/
h
Major-Road Volume (one direction), veh/h
Add right - turn bay
Edmonson Avenue & 85th Street SBR - 2045 Scenario 2 (PM Peak)
Figure 2 - 6. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road right-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
INPUT
Value
60
858
7
OUTPUT
Value
9
right-turn bay for a 2-lane roadway:
Do NOT add right-turn bay.
Roadway geometry:
Variable
Variable
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road
Major-road speed, mph:
Major-road volume (one direction), veh/h:
Right-turn volume, veh/h:
Limiting right-turn volume, veh/h:
2-lane roadw ay
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Ri
g
h
t
-
T
u
r
n
V
o
l
u
m
e
,
v
e
h
/
h
Major-Road Volume (one direction), veh/h
Add right - turn bay
MN 25 & Future Roadway (Proposed Collector) NBR - 2045 NB (PM Peak)
Figure 2 - 6. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road right-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
INPUT
Value
60
866
7
OUTPUT
Value
9
right-turn bay for a 2-lane roadway:
Do NOT add right-turn bay.
Roadway geometry:
Variable
Variable
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road
Major-road speed, mph:
Major-road volume (one direction), veh/h:
Right-turn volume, veh/h:
Limiting right-turn volume, veh/h:
2-lane roadw ay
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Ri
g
h
t
-
T
u
r
n
V
o
l
u
m
e
,
v
e
h
/
h
Major-Road Volume (one direction), veh/h
Add right - turn bay
MN 25 & Future Roadway (Proposed Collector) - 2045 Scenario 1 (PM Peak)
Figure 2 - 6. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road right-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
INPUT
Value
60
726
73
OUTPUT
Value
10
right-turn bay for a 2-lane roadway:
Add right-turn bay.
Roadway geometry:
Variable
Variable
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road
Major-road speed, mph:
Major-road volume (one direction), veh/h:
Right-turn volume, veh/h:
Limiting right-turn volume, veh/h:
2-lane roadw ay
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Ri
g
h
t
-
T
u
r
n
V
o
l
u
m
e
,
v
e
h
/
h
Major-Road Volume (one direction), veh/h
Add right - turn bay
MN 25 & Future Roadway (Proposed Collector) NBR - 2045 Scenario 2 (AM Peak)
Figure 2 - 5. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
2-lane roadway (English)
INPUT
Value
60
4%
650
593
OUTPUT
Value
326
CALIBRATION CONSTANTS
Value
3.0
5.0
1.9
Advancing volume (VA), veh/h:
Opposing volume (VO), veh/h:
Variable
Variable
Variable
85th percentile speed, mph:
Percent of left-turns in advancing volume (VA), %:
Critical headway, s:
Average time for left-turn vehicle to clear the advancing lane, s:
Limiting advancing volume (VA), veh/h:
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay:
Left-turn treatment warranted.
Average time for making left-turn, s:
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700Op
p
o
s
i
n
g
V
o
l
u
m
e
(
V
O),
v
e
h
/
h
Advancing Volume (VA), veh/h
Left-turn treatment
warranted.
Left-turn
treatment not
warranted.
MN 25 & Future Roadway (Proposed Collector) SBL - 2045 No-Build (AM Peak)
Figure 2 - 5. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
2-lane roadway (English)
INPUT
Value
55
44%
88
123
OUTPUT
Value
239
CALIBRATION CONSTANTS
Value
3.0
5.0
1.9
Critical headway, s:
Average time for left-turn vehicle to clear the advancing lane, s:
Limiting advancing volume (VA), veh/h:
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay:
Left-turn treatment NOT warranted.
Average time for making left-turn, s:
Advancing volume (VA), veh/h:
Opposing volume (VO), veh/h:
Variable
Variable
Variable
85th percentile speed, mph:
Percent of left-turns in advancing volume (VA), %:
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700Op
p
o
s
i
n
g
V
o
l
u
m
e
(
V
O),
v
e
h
/
h
Advancing Volume (VA), veh/h
Left-turn treatment
warranted.
Left-turn
treatment not
warranted.
85th Street & North Access - 2045 Scenario 1 (AM Peak)
Figure 2 - 5. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
2-lane roadway (English)
INPUT
Value
55
75%
257
468
OUTPUT
Value
188
CALIBRATION CONSTANTS
Value
3.0
5.0
1.9
Advancing volume (VA), veh/h:
Opposing volume (VO), veh/h:
Variable
Variable
Variable
85th percentile speed, mph:
Percent of left-turns in advancing volume (VA), %:
Critical headway, s:
Average time for left-turn vehicle to clear the advancing lane, s:
Limiting advancing volume (VA), veh/h:
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road left-turn bay:
Left-turn treatment warranted.
Average time for making left-turn, s:
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700Op
p
o
s
i
n
g
V
o
l
u
m
e
(
V
O),
v
e
h
/
h
Advancing Volume (VA), veh/h
Left-turn treatment
warranted.
Left-turn
treatment not
warranted.
85th Street & North Access WBL - 2030 Scenario 2 (AM Peak)
Figure 2 - 6. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road right-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
INPUT
Value
55
114
73
OUTPUT
Value
50
right-turn bay for a 2-lane roadway:
Add right-turn bay.
Roadway geometry:
Variable
Variable
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road
Major-road speed, mph:
Major-road volume (one direction), veh/h:
Right-turn volume, veh/h:
Limiting right-turn volume, veh/h:
2-lane roadw ay
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Ri
g
h
t
-
T
u
r
n
V
o
l
u
m
e
,
v
e
h
/
h
Major-Road Volume (one direction), veh/h
Add right - turn bay
85th Street & North Access EBR - 2030 Scenario 1 (AM Peak)
Figure 2 - 6. Guideline for determining the need for a major-road right-turn bay at a two-way stop-controlled intersection.
INPUT
Value
55
468
363
OUTPUT
Value
17
right-turn bay for a 2-lane roadway:
Add right-turn bay.
Roadway geometry:
Variable
Variable
Guidance for determining the need for a major-road
Major-road speed, mph:
Major-road volume (one direction), veh/h:
Right-turn volume, veh/h:
Limiting right-turn volume, veh/h:
2-lane roadw ay
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
Ri
g
h
t
-
T
u
r
n
V
o
l
u
m
e
,
v
e
h
/
h
Major-Road Volume (one direction), veh/h
Add right - turn bay
85th Street & North Access EBR - 2030 Scenario 2 (AM Peak)
kimley-horn.com 767 Eustis Street, Suite 100, St. Paul, MN 55114 651-645-4197
MEMORANDUM
To: City of Monticello
From: Jacob Rojer, P.E., PTOE
Date:
October 14, 2025
Subject: Monticello Industrial Construction Conditions Analysis (Scenario 1)
INTRODUCTION
The proposed Monticello Industrial development is located west of Edmonson Avenue, east of
Davidson Avenue, and south of 85th Street in Monticello, MN. The site is currently undergoing the AUAR
process with two development scenarios being analyzed: a Technology Park (Scenario 1) and an
Industrial Park (Scenario 2). This memorandum is focused on the construction period of Scenario 1
(Technology Park). The construction period is anticipated to see significantly higher trip generation than
the typical operations of this type of development. No construction analysis was conducted for Scenario
2, as the construction is anticipated to be less trip-intensive than the typical operations of this
development type.
Construction trip generation of the development was approximated, and the trips were assigned to the
network to determine the Peak Construction Conditions (2030) traffic volumes. A capacity analysis was
then conducted for this scenario to determine the impacts of the projected construction traffic on the
roadway network.
EXISTING ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
The characteristics of the major roadways near the proposed development are given below. Nearby
roadways include County Roads, County State Aid Highways (CSAHs), a US Highway, and local roads.
85th Street NE (or CR 106 West of MN 25) is an east-west roadway that serves as the northern
boundary of the AUAR area. It is a two-lane undivided roadway with dedicated right- and left-turn lanes
at the intersection with MN 25. 85th Street NE is classified as a major collector, according to the
Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan. According to the MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application, the existing
Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) along 85th Street is approximately 1,797 vehicles per day (vpd)
west of MN 25, as of 2024. No AADT data is available east of MN 25. The posted speed limit is 45 mph
west of MN 25. There is no posted speed limit east of MN 25, and therefore the statutory speed limit is
55 mph.
Minnesota State Highway 25 (MN 25) is a generally north-south state highway that runs west of the
AUAR area. It is a two-lane undivided roadway about 1000’ south of 85th Street, where it transitions to
a four-lane divided roadway to the north. There are dedicated left and right turn lanes at the
intersections with 85th street NE and CSAH 37. MN 25 is classified as Principal Arterial - other,
Page 2
kimley-horn.com 767 Eustis Street, Suite 100, St. Paul, MN 55114 651-645-4197
according to the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan. According to the MnDOT Traffic Mapping Application,
the existing Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) along 85th Street is approximately 15,009 vehicles
per day (vpd) north of 85th Street, as of 2024. The posted speed limit is 60 mph.
Edmonson Avenue NE (CR 117) is a north-south roadway that serves as the eastern boundary of the
AUAR area. It is a two-lane undivided roadway that connects to the AUAR site via 85th Street NE. There
are no existing turn lanes along this road. Edmonson Avenue NE is classified as a minor collector
according to the Monticello 2040 Vision + Plan. Edmonson Avenue NE has an AADT of 1,808 vpd north
of CSAH 37 and 1,930 vpd north of 85th Street NE. The posted speed limit is 55 mph.
CSAH 37 is an east-west County State Aid Highway (CSAH) located south of the AUAR area. It is a
two-lane undivided roadway. CSAH 37 is classified as a major collector south of the AUAR area
according to page 99 of the 2045 Monticello Comprehensive Plan. According to the MnDOT Traffic
Mapping Application, the road has an AADT of approximately 4,873 vpd west of Edmonson Avenue as
of 2024. The posted speed limit is 55 mph.
Davidson Avenue NE is a north-south roadway that serves as the western boundary of the AUAR
area. It is a two-lane undivided local roadway with no turn lanes. There is no AADT data available for
Davidson Avenue NE and there is no posted speed limit. The speed limit was assumed to be 45 mph
for analysis purposes.
School Boulevard is a three-lane undivided east-west roadway with one travel lane in each direction
and a shared left turn lane. School Boulevard is classified as a minor arterial, according to the Monticello
2040 Plan. MnDOT reports an AADT of 5,994 west of Edmonson Avenue and 6,464 west of Fenning
Avenue, as of 2024. The posted speed limit is 40 mph, with a school speed limit of 30 mph enforced
when children are present.
Fallon Avenue is a two-lane undivided north-south roadway. Fallon Avenue is classified as a local
road according to the Monticello 2040 Plan. MnDOT reports an AADT of 3,847 north of School
Boulevard, as of 2024. The posted speed limit is 30 mph.
STUDY AREA & INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
The AUAR traffic study included a Traffic Impact Assessment of the following study intersections:
• MN 25 & 85th Street NE (Signal)
• Edmonson Avenue NE & 85th Street NE (Side-Street Stop)
• MN 25 & County Road 37 (Signal; Future Roundabout)
• County Road 37 & Davidson Drive (Side-Street Stop)
• County Road 37 & Edmonson Drive (Side-Street Stop)
• School Boulevard & Fallon Avenue (All-Way Stop)
There are plans for corridor improvements along MN 25 near the study area, with a corridor study
previously conducted for MN 25 between Buffalo and Monticello. Among the improvements that are
anticipated to occur, MN 25 & CSAH 37 is anticipated to be converted to a single-lane roundabout in
Page 3
kimley-horn.com 767 Eustis Street, Suite 100, St. Paul, MN 55114 651-645-4197
2026. Additionally, the Davidson Avenue connection to MN 25 is planned to be removed, but this is not
assumed to occur by the Opening Year (2030) of the planned development.
DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTICS
The proposed Scenario 1 development would include a 3,000,000 square-foot technology park served
by two access points: a “North Access” located along 85th Street, and an “East Access” located along
Edmonson Avenue.
The Scenario 1 development would have a multi-year construction phase which would generate a
higher number of trips than the normal operating conditions of the development itself. For the sake of
this analysis, it is assumed that construction trips would be split between the two site access points
assumed for the development.
TRIP GENERATION
Trip generation during the site’s construction will vary significantly based on factors like the total floor
area of the development, the number of buildings in the development, the number of buildings being
constructed concurrently, and more. Because limited information about the proposed development is
known at this time, trip generation was instead estimated based on data from the Institute of
Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, and construction trip generation of
similar sites. Construction conditions of the site should be re-analyzed when site specific characteristics
and knowledge of the site construction plans are available.
Based on known trip generation patterns exhibited by sites similar to the proposed Technology Park of
Scenario 1, it is estimated that the peak construction trip generation could be approximately twice the
peak hour trip generation of typical operations. Furthermore, the vast majority of site trips during the
AM peak are expected to be entering trips while the opposite is true for the PM peak (the majority are
exiting trips). It was estimated that construction trips would exhibit a 90% entering and 10% exiting split
during the AM peak hour and a 10% entering and 90% exiting split during the PM peak hour.
The operational trip generation for Scenario 1 and the estimated Construction trip generation are shown
below in Table 1. The proposed site construction for Scenario 1 is anticipated to generate a peak of
5,940 daily trips, with 660 AM peak hour trips (595 entering and 65 exiting) and 540 PM peak hour trips
(55 entering and 485 exiting).
Table 1 – Trip Generation Comparison
Land Use Description AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Scenario 1 (LUC 160 – Data Center) 192 147 330 81 189 270
Scenario 1 Construction 595 65 660 55 485 540
VOLUME DEVELOPMENT
Page 4
kimley-horn.com 767 Eustis Street, Suite 100, St. Paul, MN 55114 651-645-4197
For the sake of simplicity, the Opening Year (2030) No-Build traffic volumes developed for the TIA were
utilized as the background traffic volumes for the Peak Construction Conditions (2030) traffic volumes.
The Opening Year (2030) No-Build Traffic Volumes are shown in Exhibit 1.
The distribution of traffic to the proposed development was developed based on a review of the nearby
roadway characteristics, existing traffic patterns, and professional engineering judgement. The
following global distribution was determined for trips entering and exiting the proposed development:
• 35% to/from the north on MN 25
• 30% to/from the east on School Boulevard
• 20% to/from the east on CSAH 37
• 15% to/from the south on MN 25
The full site traffic distribution is shown in Exhibit 2. The global traffic distribution was applied to the
construction trip generation to determine the site trip assignment for the Scenario 1 construction
conditions. The total site trip assignment for construction trips is shown in Exhibit 3.
CAPACITY ANALYSIS
A capacity analysis was performed to quantify the delay and level of service at the four study
intersections during peak traffic periods. The capacity of an intersection quantifies its ability to
accommodate traffic volumes and is measured in average delay per vehicle. It is expressed in terms of
level of service (LOS) which ranges from A to F, with LOS A as the highest (best traffic flow and least
delay), LOS E as saturated or at-capacity conditions, and LOS F as the lowest (oversaturated
conditions).
The LOS grades shown below, which are provided in the Transportation Research Board’s Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM), quantify and categorize the driver’s discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption,
and travel times experienced as a result of intersection control and the resulting traffic queuing. A
detailed description of each LOS rating can be found in Table 2. The range of control delay for each
rating (as detailed in the HCM) is also shown in Table 2. Because signalized intersections are expected
to carry a larger volume of vehicles and stopping is required during red time, higher delays are tolerated
for the corresponding LOS ratings. HCM guidance states that a roundabout is typically treated as an
unsignalized intersection for determining LOS grades.
Page 5
kimley-horn.com 767 Eustis Street, Suite 100, St. Paul, MN 55114 651-645-4197
Table 2 - Level of Service Information
Level of Service
Average Control Delay (seconds/vehicle) Description
A 0-10 (Unsignalized);
0-10 (Signalized)
Minimal control delay; traffic operates at primarily free-flow conditions; unimpeded
movement within traffic stream.
B >10-15 (Unsignalized);
>10-20 (Signalized)
Minor control delay at signalized intersections; traffic operates at a fairly unimpeded level
with slightly restricted movement within traffic stream.
C >15-25 (Unsignalized);
>20-35 (Signalized)
Moderate control delay; movement within traffic stream more restricted than at LOS B;
formation of queues contributes to lower average travel speeds.
D >25-35 (Unsignalized);
>35-55 (Signalized)
Considerable control delay that may be substantially increased by small increases in flow;
average travel speeds continue to decrease.
E >35-50 (Unsignalized);
>55-80 (Signalized) High control delay; average travel speed no more than 33 percent of free flow speed.
F >50 (Unsignalized);
>80 (Signalized)
Extremely high control delay; extensive queuing and high volumes create exceedingly
restricted traffic flow.
Capacity analysis was conducted using SimTraffic within Synchro 12 for all signalized and stop-
controlled intersections. Analysis of the future roundabout at MN 25 & CSAH 37 was conducted via
roundabout analysis software Rodel.
Construction Conditions (2030 ) Analysis
The construction traffic assignment was determined by multiplying the construction trip generation by
the construction traffic distribution. The Construction Conditions (2030) traffic volumes were determined
by adding the construction site trips in Exhibit 3 to the 2030 Background traffic volumes in Exhibit 1.
The resultant Construction Conditions (2030) traffic volumes are shown in Exhibit 4.
Results of the Construction Conditions (2030) analysis are included below in Table 3. All study
intersections are anticipated to operate at an overall LOS B or better during the AM and PM peak hours
and all individual movements/approaches at LOS D or better with the exception of two left turn
movements at the signalized MN 25 & 85th Street intersection. The anticipated operating level of the
network with the addition of Construction traffic is acceptable.
Page 6
kimley-horn.com 767 Eustis Street, Suite 100, St. Paul, MN 55114 651-645-4197
Table 3: Construction Conditions (2030) Delay and LOS
Intersection Control Approach
Operations by Movement
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Left Through Right Overall Left Through Right Overall
MN 25 &
85th Street Signal
EB E (69) D (44) A (3)
B (10)
C (31) C (22) A (3)
A (9) WB E (57) D (52) A (3) C (31) C (25) A (3)
NB A (6) A (4) A (1) A (1) A (4) A (1)
SB A (6) A (9) A (2) A (8) A (10) A (1)
Edmonson
Avenue &
85th Street
Side
Street
Stop
EB A (5) A (8) A (3)
A (10)
A (4) A (9) A (2)
A (9) WB A (5) A (10) A (3) A (4) A (9) A (3)
NB A (1) A (1) A (0) A (1) A (1) A (0)
SB A (1) A (1) A (0) A (0) A (1) A (0)
MN 25 &
CSAH 37
Round-
about
EB A (5)
A (5)
A (5)
A (8) WB A (5) A (6)
NB A (5) A (9)
SB A (5) A (7)
CSAH 37 &
Davidson
Avenue
Side
Street
Stop
EB A (5) A (3) -
A (5)
A (5) A (5) -
A (5) WB - A (2) A (2) - A (2) A (1)
NB - - - - - -
SB A (5) A (0) A (1) A (4) A (0) A (2)
CSAH 37 &
Edmonson
Avenue
Side
Street
Stop
EB A (3) A (3) A (2)
B (15)
A (2) A (3) A (2)
B (12) WB A (2) A (1) A (0) A (1) A (1) A (0)
NB B (10) B (15) A (5) A (5) B (12) A (3)
SB A (10) A (6) A (5) A (6) A (7) A (3)
85th Street
& North
Access
Side
Street
Stop
EB - A (1) A (1)
A (6)
- A (2) A (1)
A (5) WB A (3) A (3) - A (3) A (3) -
NB A (6) - A (3) A (5) - A (3)
SB - - - - - -
Edmonson
Avenue &
East Access
Side
Street Stop
EB A (6) - A (3)
A (6)
A (5) - A (3)
A (5) WB - - - - - -
NB A (1) A (1) - A (1) A (1) -
SB - A (1) A (0) - A (1) A (0)
School
Boulevard
& Fallon
Avenue
All-Way
Stop
EB A (7) C (20) B (13)
B (13)
A (7) B (14) A (9)
B (11) WB B (13) B (14) A (8) A (8) B (13) A (8)
NB B (11) B (12) A (9) A (9) A (10) A (7)
SB A (9) B (10) A (6) A (10) B (11) A (7)
*Worst movement delay reported as overall delay at side street stop controlled intersections.
Page 7
kimley-horn.com 767 Eustis Street, Suite 100, St. Paul, MN 55114 651-645-4197
CONSTRUCTION TURN LANE WARRANTS
The need for turn lanes during the construction of the site was analyzed based on the methodologies
from NCHRP Report 457. This methodology accounts for the safety and operational need for turn lanes
along the major road at a side street stop controlled intersection. The warrant takes into account the
travel speeds along the major road and the peak hour traffic volumes at the intersection.
Results of the turn lane warrant analysis for the Construction Conditions (2030) are shown below in
Table 4. The turn lane warrant analysis indicates that a right turn lane is warranted at both access
points, and a left turn lane is warranted at the east access point along Edmonson Avenue. Additionally,
a northbound right turn lane is warranted at the intersection of 85th Street & North Access.
Table 4 – Turn Lane Warrant Results
Intersection Movement Turn Lane Warrant Result
Construction Conditions (2030)
85th Street NE & North Access WBL Not Met
EBR Met
Edmonson Avenue NE & East Access NBL Met
SBR Met
Edmonson Avenue & 85th Street NE
NBR Met
NBL Not Met
SBR Not Met
SBL Not Met
CONCLUSION & RECOM MENDATIONS
The proposed Monticello Industrial development is located at the southwest corner of 85th Street &
Edmonson Avenue in Monticello, MN. The site is currently undergoing the AUAR process with two
development scenarios being analyzed: a Technology Park (Scenario 1) and an Industrial Park
(Scenario 2). A Construction Conditions (2030) analysis was conducted for Scenario 1 since the trip
generation of a Technology Park land use is anticipated to be significantly higher during the construction
phase (which would likely be completed over multiple years) than during typical operations.
Traffic was projected with Opening Year (2030) traffic volumes selected as the background traffic and
the construction site trips layered on top of these volumes. Construction trip generation was estimated
based on ITE trip generation data, and knowledge of developments similar to the proposed Scenario
1. Trips were distributed to the site assuming access points along 85th Street and Edmonson Avenue.
Page 8
kimley-horn.com 767 Eustis Street, Suite 100, St. Paul, MN 55114 651-645-4197
Under Construction Conditions (2030), all intersections are anticipated to operate at LOS A or B and
all individual movements/approaches at the study intersections operate at LOS D or better with the
exception of two left turn movements at the signalized MN 25 & 85th Street intersection. The overall
network operations are anticipated to remain acceptable without mitigation.
Turn lane warrants were analyzed using NCHRP methodologies for major-road turn lanes at side street
stop-controlled intersections. It was found that left-and right turn lanes are warranted at the access
point along Edmonson Avenue, a right turn lane is warranted at the access point along 85th Street, and
a northbound right turn lane is warranted at the intersection of 85th Street & Edmonson Avenue.
The following mitigation measures are recommended for the Scenario 1 Construction Conditions
(2030):
• Install side street stop control at all access points
• Install left-and right-turn lanes at access point(s) along Edmonson Avenue
• Install right turn lane at access point(s) along 85th Street
• Install a northbound right turn lane at 85th Street & Edmonson Avenue
Note that the findings of this memorandum are preliminary based on assumptions made with limited
information. Further traffic analysis of the construction conditions should be conducted when site
specific information is available. The mitigation listed above is subject to substantial change based on
the characteristics of the proposed site and construction process.
NOT TO SCALE
85th Street
School Blvd
MINNESOTA
25
MINNESOTA
25
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
106WRIGHT
COUNTY
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
37WRIGHT
COUNTY 37WRIGHT
COUNTY
EXHIBIT 1
2030 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL
LEGEND
Study Intersection
AM (PM) Peak Hour Traffic
NOT TO SCALE
85th Street
School Blvd
MINNESOTA
25
MINNESOTA
25
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
106WRIGHT
COUNTY
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
37WRIGHT
COUNTY 37WRIGHT
COUNTY
EXHIBIT 2
SCENARIO 1 CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL
LEGEND
Study Intersection
In [Out] Trip Distribution
Global Distribution
Site Location
X% [X%]
X%
East Access
NOT TO SCALE
85th Street
School Blvd
MINNESOTA
25
MINNESOTA
25
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
106WRIGHT
COUNTY
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
37WRIGHT
COUNTY 37WRIGHT
COUNTY
EXHIBIT 3
CONSTRUCTION TRIP ASSIGNMENT
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL
LEGEND
Study Intersection
AM (PM) Peak Site Trips
Site Location
East Access
NOT TO SCALE
85th Street
School Blvd
MINNESOTA
25
MINNESOTA
25
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
106WRIGHT
COUNTY
117WRIGHT
COUNTY
37WRIGHT
COUNTY 37WRIGHT
COUNTY
EXHIBIT 4
PEAK CONSTRUCTION (2030) TRAFFIC VOLUMES
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL
LEGEND
Study Intersection
AM (PM) Peak Traffic Volume
Site Location
East Access
Appendix F:
Comment
Responses
1
OVERVIEW
Pursuant to Minnesota Rules, part 4410.3610, subpart 5a(C), the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) shall revise the environmental analysis
document based on comments received during the comment period. The RGU shall include in the document a section specifically responding to
each timely, substantive comment received that indicates in what way the comment has been addressed.
The 30-day Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) comment period began November 18, 2025, and comments were accepted through
December 18, 2025. Five comment letters were received from government agencies, and 51 comment letters were received from the public.
Responses to the agency comments are included in Table 1 and responses to public comment themes are in Table 2. Copies of the comment
letters are included in Appendix G.
CHANGES MADE TO THE FINAL AUAR
The following changes were applied to the Final AUAR based on the Draft AUAR comment period via the Public Open House on November 20,
2025, the Joint Planning Commission and City Council Worksession on December 15, 2025, and submitted comment letters:
Agency Comments:
• Updated the Wright County zoning section in Item 10 Land Use per coordination with the County.
• Item 12 Water Resources.b.i.1 has been updated to correct the state statute reference to Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 18(A).
• The text in Item 11 Geology, Soils, and Topography in Final AUAR has been revised to clarify the SWPPP and the NPDES Construction
stormwater permit requirements.
• A note has been added to Item 17 Air that references project related transportation GHG emissions.
• Additional alternative methods for Scenario 1 wastewater discharge have been added to the Final AUAR in Item 12.b.i Water Resources.
• The estimated size of the RIB system has been added to the Final AUAR in Item 8 Cover Types.
• A note has been added to clarify in Item 12.b.iv about stormwater management proposed to be treated within the study area so that no
downstream impacts are anticipated.
• A new mitigation item that the developer will coordinate development details with the DNR as project(s) advance has been added to the
Mitigation Plan table.
Public Comments:
• Added a list of acronyms to the beginning of the Final AUAR document.
• Re-worded text in Item 7 Climate Adaption to clarify locations of future roundabouts.
• Added the anticipated percentage of buildable area, impervious surface and landscaping within scenario 1 and 2’s developable area in
Item 8 Cover Types.
2
• Added the link to MPCA’s guidance on Rapid Infiltration Basin systems in Item 12.b.i.1 Water Resources.
• Added the link to Climate Change Data to Inform Stormwater Management in Item 12.b.ii Water Resources.
• Added Scenario 2’s net demand calculation in Table 17 to account for the current property owner appropriation use similar to how it
was shown for Scenario 1.
• Removed the last two sites identified in Table 19 as they are outside of the quarter mile review area.
• Added more information about electronic waste for Scenario 1 and 2 in Item 13 Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes.
• Added the estimate of number of generators that would trigger the EAW review per Minnesota Rules 4410.4300 in Item 13
Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes.
• Added the trigger for an air permit/EAW review under Minn. Rules 4410.4300 Subp. 15 in Item 17 Air.
• Added a description of a future noise study steps and that the city is looking into changing the City’s noise ordinance for construction
times allowed in Item 19 Noise.
• Added a column for responsible party to the mitigation plan (Table 26).
• Clarified text in the mitigation plan for if it is required or optional mitigation (Table 26).
• Added more explanation of the cumulative analysis in Item 21, Cumulative Potential Effects.
• Defined industrial wastewater in Item 12 b Water Resources and what ongoing monitoring looks like for contaminants in either scenario.
AGENCY COMMENTS
Table 1. Government Agency Comments and Responses
Comment Response
1. Wright County
The County does not have any significant comments currently. Access location and
design along CR 117 will be reviewed during the platting process.
Additionally, as the area around CR 117 develops would the City be interested in
discussing a turn back of the roadway similar to Edmonson Ave to the north.
Thank you for your comment. The city will discuss
changes in jurisdiction for CR 117 outside of the
AUAR process.
2. Minnesota Department of Health
Staff in the Source Water Protection Unit at the Minnesota Department of Health have
reviewed the Draft Monticello Industrial AUAR and have no comments. We appreciate
Thank you for your review and comment.
3
Comment Response
that the AUAR includes the corrections and suggestions from MDH during the AUAR
Scoping.
3. Minnesota Department of Transportation
After reviewing the AUAR MNDOT District 3 has the following comments:
- If future development occurs on the parcels indicated in the AUAR MnDOT would
apply our urbanizing access spacing (e.g., ½-mile to 1-mile) to this area as it is being
transitioned from rural to urban with this development.
- If future development occurs on the parcels indicated, it is likely that increased traffic
impacts to the intersection of MN 25 and 85th St NE could occur which could in turn
result in the need for intersection improvements potentially up to and including a
roundabout.
- We look forward to reviewing and providing comments should additional changes or
developments be proposed.
Thank you for your review. These traffic related
items are included in the AUAR. The developer and
city will re-engage with MnDOT if plans change in
the future and to address changing traffic conditions
along 5MN 25.
4. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Wastewater
• Section 11.a. states that a Geotechnical Evaluation was completed for the study
area. A copy of that report should be included in the DAUAR.
This report will be provided to the MPCA.
• Section 12.b.i.1) states that if a proposed 36-inch trunk sewer line capacity exceeds 2
million gallons per day (mgd) that a separate EAW would be required with the MPCA
as the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU). The correct requirement for Monticello
is Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 18(A). This subpart requires an EAW for expansion,
modification or replacement of a municipal sewage collection system resulting in an
increase in design average daily flow of any part of that system by 1,000,000 gallons
per day or more if the discharge is to a wastewater treatment facility with a capacity
less than 20,000,000 gallons per day, the MPCA is the RGU.
This has been updated in the Final AUAR.
4
Comment Response
The DAUAR stated that additional hydrogeological analysis is needed for the Rapid
Infiltration Basin (RIB). Since the RIB is the sole method discussed for cooling water
discharge, more details regarding capability of the soil and geology to infiltrate the
large volume of water should be included. Until that is completed it is not possible to
determine whether a RIB is feasible or permittable.
An alternative method is discussed in Item 12. If a
future development requires 310,000 GPD or less of
non-contact cooling water and domestic wastewater
then that discharge could go to the city’s municipal
sanitary sewer collection system as the additional
discharge to the WWTP is within hydraulic capacity.
Additional alternatives have been added to the Final
AUAR in Item 12.b.i (wastewater):
• Re-use of non-contact cooling water for
spray irrigation for crop fields
• Obtain a surface discharge permit for non-
contact cooling water discharge. The permit
for this has been added to the permit table
(Table 6)
Both of these would require additional coordination,
review, and permit from the MPCA, if feasible.
If it is found that the soils are not suitable for infiltration of the cooling water, other
options that are being considered for discharge should be discussed.
See comment response above for additional
alternatives added to the Final AUAR.
RIB systems for this waste type have not typically been permitted in Minnesota.
Thorough characterization of the site, hydrogeology and wastewater characteristics
will be needed to assess the viability of the proposed system. If the system is
permitted, ongoing monitoring will be needed to ensure that the system is performing
as expected and is protective of resources.
It is anticipated that the developer will submit an
EAW to the MPCA for review of the RIB system,
including maintenance plans.
The AUAR discusses maintenance in Item 12.
Maintenance will involve periodic removal of the top
few inches of mineral deposit-laden soil, which will
be disposed of in a landfill. Monthly Discharge
Monitoring Reports will be required according to the
NPDES permit. The developer will be responsible for
5
Comment Response
hiring a licensed professional to prepare these
reports and send them to the MPCA.
In addition to the high volume of cooling water discharged, there will be infiltration of
onsite stormwater. The impacts to groundwater and surface waters from infiltrating
large volumes of water and the temperature of the cooling water should be discussed
in more detail. Impacts to area groundwater elevations and potential areas of
groundwater discharge to surface waters should be included. High temperature
discharges may impact both underlying geology and groundwater discharges to
surface waters and this should be discussed in more detail.
The DAUAR refers to the RIB as a filter for the water to reaching the groundwater. The
RIB may provide filtration of particulates, but it would not be expected to provide
significant removal of dissolved pollutants. It would be expected that the cooling
wastewater should be relatively low in particulates but potentially high in dissolved
parameters. The levels of the dissolved parameters in the wastewater that is proposed
to be infiltrated should be defined to ensure that water quality standards (Class I
drinking water standards) are maintained in the groundwater.
The analysis within the EAW process as part of the
MPCA permit application will address MPCA’s
comments related to the specific RIB design
information such as temperature, volumes, potential
areas of groundwater discharge, and filtration of
particulates, and ongoing monitoring for specific
dissolved parameters.
Non-contact cooling water, which circulates through
equipment multiple times in technology parks, will
ultimately be discharged to the RIB. This water
contains no human or industrial waste and meets
MDH drinking water standards, consisting only of
water from groundwater wells.
The soils across the AUAR study area primarily
consist of hydraulic group A/B and are potentially
suitable for infiltration via a RIB system.
It is not clear if any pretreatment would be needed (or if pretreatment waste streams
will be generated) to condition the water for use in the cooling system (e.g.,
iron/manganese removal, softening, etc.). Treatment and treatment waste streams
will affect discharge quality and potential permitting.
No pretreatment is anticipated to be needed for
either scenario. Iron/manganese removal is taken
care of at the City’s Water Treatment Plant and no
additional treatment will be needed or chemicals
added.
It is not clear if any chemical additives would be required to condition the water for
use in the cooling system (e.g., chemicals for pH adjustment, microbial/biological
control, corrosion, passivation, etc.). Chemical additives will affect discharge quality
and potential permitting.
Only chlorine and a permanganate additive that
would also be used in drinking water will need to be
added to stabilize the water. Based on preliminary
water testing it is not assumed that any other
chemical will be required to be added to the water.
The developer will make the final decision and will
6
Comment Response
need to comply with MPCA standards for the
discharge of the non-contact cooling water.
In Section 8, Table 3 lists the existing and proposed cover types and includes
stormwater treatment and infiltration area. A similar estimate of the area required for
storage and infiltration of cooling water should be included.
The RIB system is anticipated to be 15 to 20 acres in
total area and be comprised of four cells with a
bottom area of each cell being 3.5 to 4.5 acres in
size based on preliminary soil information. Actual
size will depend on developers’ flow rates and
results of more in-depth soil testing. This
information has been added to the Final AUAR in the
Item 8 Cover Types section.
Construction Stormwater
• During construction, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Construction Stormwater General Permit requires preserving a 50-foot natural buffer
around wetlands, rather than the 20-foot buffer referenced in Section 12.b.ii. If
maintaining the required buffer is not feasible, the reason must be documented in the
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and redundant perimeter sediment
control best management practices (BMPs) must be installed.
• The proposed infiltration practices must meet the 48 -hour drawdown requirement
and be sized to ensure proper maintenance access and long-term functionality. As
found in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual, it is highly recommended that infiltration
basins have a maximum contributing drainage area of 50-acres with a maximum 5:1
ratio of impervious area to infiltration area.
The Final AUAR has been updated to with this
requirement.
The analysis in the AUAR is sized for 48-hour
drawdown. Adequate pretreatment with NURP
Pools will help maintain the long-term effectiveness
of the infiltration area when receiving drainage from
large and or highly impervious contributing areas.
Air – Air quality analysis:
• The DAUAR addresses the vehicular emissions expected from the proposed Project
by using the Minnesota Department of Transportation screening method designed to
identify intersections that will not cause a carbon monoxide emissions impacts above
the standards. The DAUAR has done a detailed traffic impact study analysis to
determine the impacts of the proposed Project on air quality. The DAUAR should have
used the assessment of this traffic study to determine the Project’s effect on air
quality rather than the screening method. This would have provided the Project’s
The EQB’s GHG emissions calculator that was used
for the GHG emissions calculation converts PM2.5
and NOx to CO tons for project related impacts,
including transportation. A note has been added to
Item 17 Air to the AUAR to reference that section for
this analysis.
7
Comment Response
traffic generation impacts on air emissions. It would have also assessed the Project’s
vehicle related emissions’ effects air quality. Based on this information, then it would
been easier to determine if any mitigation measures are required for the proposed
Project.
• For a project of this size being planned, the DAUAR should have provided a
qualitative discussion of other pollutants including PM2.5 NOx.
Traffic - Traffic impact analysis:
• The DAUAR has done a great job in conducting a detailed traffic impact analysis
study and included in the DAUAR as an Appendix. The study discussed the Project’s
impact on the regional transportation system and the impacts of the Project’s
generated traffic would have on the surrounding area. Based in the detailed study
some traffic improvements proposed in the DAUAR must be implemented to reduce
the expected impacts.
Thank you for your review.
Watershed
• On pages 14, 59, and 101, The document refers to a “chloride management plan”
that will be implemented for every project requiring an NPDES permit. Although there
is brief mention of three possible elements of these plans on page 101, a more
detailed description of the elements of such a plan could easily be added here in an
appendix. As chloride management is an extremely important consideration in
Minnesota’s climate, please provide better descriptions of what such a plan might
entail.
• Water Resources: Although Paradise and Gilchrist Lakes are not listed as impaired, in
both cases this is a result of a lack of data, not necessarily because the lakes are
healthy. The MN DNR Lakefinder (Minnesota LakeBrowser) indicates that water clarity
in Gilchrist Lake (there is no data on Paradise) has improved slightly over the last 50
years, but as a shallow lake with a maximum depth of 9 feet, the lake will be
vulnerable to any changes in the watershed. Both Paradise and Gilchrist appear to be
hydrologically connected to the AUAR area, so please put greater consideration to
protecting these surface waters and greater description as to what the potential water
quality and water volume impacts to these waters might be, particularly as wetland 4
Specifics for the chloride management plan will be
developed as site plans advance and will follow
guidance from:
https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/wq-
s1-94.pdf and
https://www.pca.state.mn.us/business-with-
us/smart-salting-training
The high-level hydrologic study in the AUAR
compared pre-development and potential post
development runoff rates for the design storms and
compared runoff volume from the back-to-back 100-
year storm for scenarios 1 and 2 to mitigate
downstream impacts. The initial pond sizing
suggests that discharge rates and volumes will be
managed in the ponding areas provided in the
analysis. Any proposed stormwater management
8
Comment Response
appears to feed both lakes. Impervious surface and runoff both have the potential to
alter conditions in wetland 4.
• Page 25-Table 7, Item “c”- Would these impacts also include water usage? As the
AUAR indicates that additional appropriation of groundwater over and above what is
currently permitted by the DNR will occur as the site is developed, what impact might
this have on current and future residential development in the area?
• Page 69-Item 1- The document states that “the developer will classify the wetlands
using the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method (MnRAM) prior to construction.”
From the Board of Soil and Water Resources (BWSR) website: “ While the principles
and logic behind MnRAM remain sound, using MnRAM output as the sole means to
compare wetlands when making wetland permitting/impact decisions is discouraged
by BWSR. MnRAM lacks the precision to make very specific comparisons in these
situations. However, MnRAM outputs can be useful when used in conjunction with
other characteristics and professional judgment.” Any wetland delineations or
functional assessments should be completed only by qualified, trained, and certified (if
applicable) wetland professionals.
• Page 102, Table 26, “Geology, Soils, and Topography”- The language in the
document appears confused about what is required with regard to the NPDES
Construction stormwater permit. The “SWPPP” is a requirement of the permit and not
the permit itself, and the acronym “SWPPP” in this case refers to a Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan, not a “program.” The Stormwater Pollution Prevention
“Program” is a requirement of the MS4 program, not construction stormwater.
design will need to meet the rules in the City’s
Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan.
Additionally, stormwater will be infiltrated as the
primary treatment method and/or treated prior to
discharge to receiving water bodies.
The city has completed an initial study analyzing the
capacity of the local aquifer. This assessment
considered the potential effects of future
development under both Scenario 1 and Scenario 2
and future city growth. Based on the results of this
analysis, the aquifer does not appear to be
impacted, even when accounting for other
anticipated growth within the city. Additionally, the
Table 7, item “C” includes utilities such as water,
sewer, and storm.
Future developers will follow the current city
ordinances and assessment tools at the time of the
development for wetland delineations and
functional assessments.
The text in Item 11 Geology, Soils, and Topography
in Final AUAR has been revised to clarify the SWPPP
and the NPDES Construction stormwater permit as
noted in this comment.
5. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Page 44-49, Wastewater, Scenario 1. This section states that non-contact cooling
water would be circulated two or more times before being discharged to groundwater
through a Rapid Infiltration Basin. More information should be provided on the
limitations of cooling water recirculation that prevent further re-use. Also, how is
The limited use of the cooling water is determined
by the quality of the water being used. The lower
the hardness and other minerals found in the
9
Comment Response
cooling water altered before being discharged back to groundwater? Is it softened? Is
F-gas used in the cooling process? If so, would the cooling water free of contaminants,
including PFAS, before being discharged back to groundwater?
existing water allows the water to be used more
times for cooling.
With the typical Minnesota hardwater (hardness
greater than 100 mg/L) some traditional softening
and/or filtration will be required at the
facility. Based on the new water system
improvements being implemented by the City of
Monticello with and Iron and Manganese filter, the
treatment of the water at the facility will need to be
re-evaluated once the water plant is on-line.
Typically, only chlorine to prevent bacteria growth
and a potassium permanganate are added to the
water to stabilize the water. Sometimes a pH
adjustment is needed if the water has a high or low
pH. F-gas is not typically used in the non-contact
cooling water process, and all discharges are
required to meet the permit requirements set by the
MPCA during the permitting process.
Page 76, Section 14.c. There is limited discussion of impacts to non-rare features
(wildlife and undeveloped vegetation). The AUAR acknowledges potential impacts to
Blanding’s turtles but does not discuss how the species may be impacted.
Development of upland areas may remove nesting and foraging areas and impacts to
wetlands may harm over wintering turtles or destroy habitat used for foraging and/or
basking.
The developer will coordinate development details
with the DNR as project(s) advance. Avoidance plans
will be submitted for review and approval in
advance of construction. This has been added to the
Mitigation Plan table.
Page 85, Table 22: Annual Operational Emissions. The estimated emissions for building
energy consumption for Scenario 1 were based on a typical light industrial user
according to the section footnote. The AUAR acknowledges that data centers have
different impacts from other industrial users prompting the City to create a Data
Center Planned Unity Development Zoning Ordinance to address these specific
impacts. This section should utilize estimates that more accurately reflect the energy
The estimates included in Item 18 for operational
GHG emissions for energy are accurate for building
consumption for a typical light industrial building
that was studied as Scenario 1 and 2. However, the
actual energy demand from a specific developer
such as data center for Scenario 1 is variable and
10
Comment Response
use of a data center. Without realistic energy use estimates, it is difficult to compare
scenarios, anticipate potential cumulative effects or draft a comprehensive mitigation
plan.
depends on several factors such as the type of
equipment, cooling systems, power redundancy, and
overall efficiency that is not possible to estimate
without a specific developer/project being known.
11
PUBLIC COMMENTS
In addition to the comments received from public agencies, 51 comments were received from the general public. These comments contained
many common themes which are summarized below. The city has provided responses that address each of the common themes, see Table 2. A
list of commenter names and associated comment themes are listed below the table.
Table 2. General Public Comments and Responses
Comment Theme Summary Response
Health impacts
Health impacts
Public commenters were concerned about the effects of
noise associated with the development scenarios on human
health. They cite sleep disruption, headaches, and stress as
symptoms of exposure to noise pollution. The commenters
also expressed worry regarding potential spikes in air
pollution from generators which could emit nitrous oxide,
particulate matter, and carbon monoxide. Additionally,
commenters were concerned about the cumulative effects of
noise and air pollution which they stated could lead to
hypertension, cardiovascular risks, and lung problems. They
were particularly worried about impacts to vulnerable
populations like children and elderly individuals.
Health impacts
The project proposer will be required to
follow the mitigation plan, which includes
completing noise studies to understand if
any potential noise mitigation is needed. If
any potential emission generation (e.g.,
from generators) from future development
is above the threshold for an air quality
permit/environmental review, then that
specific project would be subject to
additional environmental review beyond
what is evaluated in this AUAR.
12
Comment Theme Summary Response
Contamination
Existing contamination on site
Public commenters expressed concern for contamination
they have seen on site that was not explicitly addressed in
the AUAR. They want to ensure this contamination will be
adequately mitigated and disposed of prior to development.
E-waste
Public commenters were concerned about the end-of-life
procedures and disposal for specialized equipment under
Scenario 1. They requested a binding decommissioning plan
be created for any equipment considered to be “e-waste”.
Fuel leakage from generators
Another concern related to contamination was the potential
for impacts to groundwater due to leaks that could occur in
back-up generator fuel storage tanks. The commenters want
to know how a leak like this would be addressed to avoid
impacts to the groundwater supply.
Existing contamination on site
The AUAR only includes a desktop,
preliminary analysis of potential
contaminated materials on or near the site.
Prior to development, the developer would
be required to complete a Phase I or Phase II
Environmental Assessment and coordinate
with the MPCA to ensure safe handling and
disposal of hazardous materials. See Item 13
for more details.
E-waste
The AUAR has been updated to include more
information on e-waste and mitigation
options for recycling and re-use for both
scenarios.
Fuel leakage from generators
The developer would prepare an Emergency
Action Plan for the use of back-up
generators under either scenario, which
should include routine maintenance and
testing, proper and safe setup during an
outage, and fuel management and
containment that would prevent fuel
leakage into the groundwater. This is noted
in item 13.c and in the mitigation plan.
13
Noise and Lighting
Desire for a noise study
Public commenters expressed concern about the timing of
noise studies related to the proposed development. They
were troubled by the decision to delay a noise study until a
future, specific project is identified. They questioned the
methodology of such studies, including where measurements
are taken in relation to the site, whether studies are
conducted during all seasons to capture varying conditions,
and if the modeling accounts for a maximum build-out
scenario. They requested that modeling include noise
contours and night-time conditions while using assumptions
based on specific equipment.
Construction-related noise
Given the extended and phased nature of the proposed
development, commenters raised the issue of construction
noise and its regulation. They asked whether more stringent
construction noise regulations would be necessary to address
the long-term and potentially disruptive impacts of ongoing
construction activities.
Noise from generators, chillers, and low-frequency noise
Public commenters were worried about noise generated by
mechanical equipment, specifically, continuous noise from
chillers under Scenario 1, and truck-related noise, including
idling and loading activities, under Scenario 2. Commenters
were also concerned about the mitigation of low-frequency
noise.
Noise regulation beyond Minnesota state statutes
Commenters expressed dissatisfaction with the adequacy of
existing Minnesota Noise Standards, suggesting that they
may not provide sufficient protection for the community.
There were calls for stricter city limits on nighttime noise,
generator testing, and requirements for enclosures and
Desire for a noise study
Because operations can vary greatly
between users in both scenarios, a noise
study is conducted for a project at the time
of development proposal to model what the
expected project related noise would be and
identify any potential mitigation needed.
The Final AUAR has been updated in Item 19
Noise to explain what is included in a future
noise study once a project has been
identified.
Construction-related noise
The developer will need to comply with the
city noise ordinances that are in place for
when construction occurs.
Noise from generators, chillers, and low-
frequency, noise regulation beyond
Minnesota state statutes, and lighting
concerns
The AUAR states that the developer under
either scenario would be required to abide
by all city and state requirements pertaining
to noise and light. The developer will be
responsible for determining if their
proposed project would surpass these
requirements and would be responsible for
conducting any studies to identify required
mitigation.
The city is currently conducting public
engagement on a Data Center Planned-use
Development District. The city encourages
14
Comment Theme Summary Response
specific low-frequency noise controls. Additionally, concerns
were raised about the impact of noise on wildlife.
Lighting concerns
Public commenters were worried about nighttime light
pollution that could occur under the development scenarios.
They requested more information on how the study area
would be lit following development and if regulations could
be implemented that specify what lighting equipment should
be installed.
this commenter to provide feedback related
to specific lighting and noise mitigation
measures through that process.
15
Comment Theme Summary Response
Surface water
Wetland Impacts
Commenters requested that specific wetland impacts are
identified for each development scenario. They also
requested a clear mitigation path be identified and were
unsure if the identified wetland buffers would be abided by.
The commenters were worried that loss of wetlands could
lead to less flood protection, water filtration, and outdoor
spaces.
Bertram Chain of Lakes Impacts
Public commenters were concerned the development
scenarios could lead to impacts to the Bertram Chain of
Lakes.
Wetland Impacts:
The anticipated maximum development
capacity impact for wetland impacts has
been identified for both Scenario 1 and 2 (as
shown on Figure 3 and 4). Specific wetland
mitigation will be determined by the
appropriate agencies at the time a site
specific development plan has been
submitted. The project proposer will be
required to comply with all federal, state,
and local wetland requirements including
avoiding and minimizing impacts to the
extent practicable and mitigating any
wetland impacts that are unavoidable. The
City of Monticello also requires wetland
buffers based on anticipated wetland
quality.
Bertram Chain of Lakes Impacts
The Bertram Chain of Lakes Impacts is over 2
miles from the study area location and is not
anticipated to have an impact from future
development in this area. The developer will
be required to design the site with runoff
rates and volumes that provide no
measurable effects to pollution levels to
nearby waterbodies.
16
Comment Theme Summary Response
Stormwater
Stormwater modeling accuracy
Public commenters expressed concern that the stormwater
modeling used in the AUAR may not be based on the most
up-to-date data. Commenters also worried that the modeling
does not adequately represent a full build-out scenario or
account for worst-case climate change conditions.
Impacts to downstream features and runoff
Commenters were concerned about potential increases in
runoff due to conversion of farmland to impervious surface
and impacts to wetlands. They were worried about how
runoff could impact county ditches, existing neighborhoods,
and proposed residential developments.
Inadequate design information
Commenters stated the AUAR lacked a depiction of
conceptual pond locations, estimated impervious surface
totals, information on infiltration feasibility, and rate/volume
control strategies. Concern about flooding risk to
neighborhoods and planned residential development.
Stormwater modeling accuracy
The city used the most up to date version of
NOAA Atlas 14 in its Hydrocad model and a
link to the guidance document used has
been added to the AUAR.
Impacts to downstream features and runoff
The closest county ditch to the study area is
over 4,500 feet northwest, upstream of the
study area. The city does not anticipate the
future development to impact this feature.
Neither scenario includes a proposal to
convert all farmland to impervious surface.
Scenario 1 proposes 171 acres of impervious
surface and Scenario 2 proposes 232 acres.
The AUAR includes stormwater modeling
that is consistent with all city stormwater
ordinances. The discharge rate from the
proposed scenarios will be less than or equal
to current conditions.
Inadequate design information
Conceptual pond locations are shown on
Figures 16-17, impervious surface totals are
listed in Table 3, and infiltration feasibility,
and rate/volume control strategies, flooding
risk to neighborhoods and planned
residential development are discussed in
Item 12.b.ii Stormwater.
17
Comment Theme Summary Response
Water use/drinking water
Accounting for future growth
Commenters were concerned about the large amount of
water demand required from both scenarios and if this allows
for future city growth.
Water Pollution
Commenters were concerned that data centers will create
water pollution, specifically into the groundwater from the
RIB system.
Accounting for future growth
Increases beyond the city’s existing water
appropriation and treatment capacity will be
coordinated and studied with the MnDNR as
needed (see Item 12 in the Final AUAR for
more details). See response below about
regional impacts on the aquifer for more
information.
Water Pollution
The proposed Rapid Infiltration Basin (RIB)
system for capturing wastewater is
described in Item 12 Water Resources. The
RIB system will be designed with Drinking
Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA)
considerations in mind and will comply with
Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) and
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
standards of care for DWSMA regions. It will
also require its own permitting and
environmental review through the MPCA.
18
Comment Theme Summary Response
Groundwater/Wastewater/RIB
Regional and local impacts to the aquifer from Scenario 1
Commenters were concerned about the high water demand
required from Scenario 1 and data centers in general and
how that will impact the aquifer.
Adjacent well impact
Commenters were concerned about the impact on adjacent
wells from the water consumption needed and the RIB
system proposed in Scenario 1 and how that would impact
adjacent wells.
Industrial wastewater
Commenters were concerned that industrial wastewater was
not addressed in the AUAR.
Contaminants
Commenters were concerned about contaminants from the
non-contract cooling wastewater, specifically if it can contain
PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances).
Regional and local impacts to the aquifer
from Scenario 1 and adjacent well impact
The city is currently undertaking an aquifer
analysis study, which will include a
hydrogeological model of aquifer drawdown
and cumulative groundwater demand
impacts in combination with future city
growth. The Scenario 1 (s) developer would
be responsible for removing onsite wells
prior to development. For Scenario 2, users
would also be responsible for removing
onsite wells prior to development. No other
wells are anticipated to be impacted by the
project as the water would be sourced from
a proposed watermain. The city has
determined the soils in the study area are
adequate for a RIB system. Prior to
construction, the developer would conduct
additional study, including an Environmental
Assessment Worksheet. Any water the
developer may discharge into the RIB system
would be an ambient temperature and free
of contamination.
19
Comment Theme Summary Response
Industrial wastewater
The EQB’s AUAR guidance states that only
domestic wastewater should be considered
in an AUAR—industrial wastewater would
be coming from industrial uses that are
excluded from review through an AUAR
process. For clarity, the Final AUAR in Item
12.b.i. has been updated to explain the
definition of industrial wastewater and a
note has been added to this section that
industrial wastewater is not anticipated to
be generated for either development
scenario.
Contaminants
Only chlorine and a permanganate additive
that would also be used in drinking water
will need to be added to stabilize the water.
Based on preliminary water testing it is not
assumed that any other chemical will be
required to be added to the water. The
developer will make the final decision and
will need to comply with MPCA standards
for the discharge of the non-contact cooling
water.
Monitoring of the wastewater effluent will
be conducted in accordance with NPDES
permit issued by the MPCA. The discharge
will be required to meet the limits of
contamination set by the MPCA for the
specific site during the permitting process.
20
Comment Theme Summary Response
Transportation/traffic impacts
Freight impact and school routes
Commenters were concerned about freight and heavy truck
trips expected under Scenario 2 and for construction in
Scenario 1. Commenters asked for the traffic study in the
AUAR to be updated to include regional traffic impact
analysis, including freight modeling, school traffic and long-
term roadway maintenance.
Effects on Highway 25 and County Road 39
One commenter asked for County Road 39 to be included in
in the AUAR traffic analysis. Other commenters were
concerned about traffic and congestion in the future on
Highway 25.
Freight impact and school routes
Truck traffic was modeled accordingly as
part of the Traffic Study for both Scenario 1
and 2 to understand any potential
operational impacts. However, impact to the
roadway condition from freight is not
something that's typically looked at as part
of an AUAR or traffic study. That falls under
an asset management study that the road
owner would assess.
A regional traffic impact assessment,
including freight and heavy truck trips are
outside the scope of an AUAR Traffic Impact
Assessment. Road deterioration, noise, and
long-term city maintenance costs are
outside the scope of a Traffic Impact
Assessment. The city did consider school
routes during traffic counts and intersection
analysis. The city will coordinate
adjustments to school and emergency
routes during construction, if necessary.
Effects on Highway 25 and County Road 39
The AUAR includes Highway 25 in the traffic
analysis. CR 39 is over 2 miles away from the
study area and is outside the scope of the
Traffic Impact Assessment.
21
Comment Theme Summary Response
Climate
Long term climate impacts
Commenters were concerned about development in the
study area contributing to climate change and that the AUAR
did not include enough information on current climate
trends.
Long term climate impacts
Item 7 Climate Adaptation and Resilience
lists local and regional climate trend data.
Project related climate adaptions are
described in Table 2. Additionally, the
majority of technology park developers have
sustainability goals around water, energy,
carbon, recycling that would be
implemented in the study area (applies to
Scenario 1).
Energy
High electricity demand
Commenters were concerned that data centers will consume
a high amount of electricity and will put a strain on the grid
system and result in higher electricity bills for residents.
High electricity demand
For Scenario 1, the (s)developer will be
responsible for requesting a System Impact
Study and coordinating permitting with the
appropriate utility companies and the Public
Utilities Commission. The cost of these
improvements would not affect current rate
payers. The utility company’s model would
be coordinated with the Midcontinent
Independent System Operator’s model to
ensure the project properly integrates into
the broader energy system (see Item 22 in
the Final AUAR for more details). Similar
study may be required depending on the
user(s) for Scenario 2.
22
Comment Theme Summary Response
Emissions
Backup generators impact
Commenters were concerned about the quantity and impact
of backup generators that may be needed for Scenario 1,
including noise impacts and air emissions.
Air quality concerns
Commenters were concerned about air pollution from
generators in Scenario 1.
Backup generators impact
For Scenario 1, the development would only
use back-up generators during emergencies,
maintenance, and up to once per month for
testing. The AUAR states that backup diesel
generators require independent
environmental study if proposed emissions
surpass the threshold for an Environmental
Assessment Worksheet. The developer(s)
would be responsible for completing this
documentation prior to construction. The
same requirements apply to Scenario 2 for
end-users installing generator equipment.
Air quality concerns
Air quality from stationary source emissions
is outside the scope of an AUAR. If a future
project is proposed that surpasses state
thresholds for air quality, then the developer
would be responsible for completing
relevant permitting and additional
environmental review.
Loss of land/conversion of
land
Preservation of agricultural land
Commenters were concerned about the land conversion from
agricultural use to light industrial and wanted to see the land
preserved as agricultural use. Commenters were also
concerned about the loss of farmland.
Preservation of agricultural land
The city has not included agricultural
preservation in a scenario because that
would be inconsistent with the Monticello
2040 Comprehensive Plan.
23
Comment Theme Summary Response
Habitat/Wildlife
Impacts to wildlife corridors and the planned greenway are
dismissed
Commenters were concerned about the impacts to wildlife
corridors and habitats. They wanted to ensure the mitigation
plan protects species and their habitats.
Impacts to wildlife corridors and the
planned greenway are dismissed
The AUAR includes discussion of impacts to
wildlife and mitigation strategies in Item 14.
The available habitat for wildlife would likely
increase under either scenario. This is
because most of the study area consists of
cropland and both development scenarios
propose over 200 acres of lawn and
landscaping. The city included the greenway
corridor in both development scenarios (see
Figures 3 and 4 in the Final AUAR). The
developer would be required to obtain the
appropriate permits and conduct required
mitigation for wetland impacts according to
state and federal law. The city and project
proposer acknowledge that intentional
efforts to preserve and protect these
resources are necessary. Mitigating
environmental impacts primarily relies on
using existing ordinances, rules, and
regulations. The development scenarios do
not change regulatory agencies'
responsibilities or add new regulations.
24
Comment Theme Summary Response
Environmental review
Incomplete mitigation
Commenters wanted the AUAR to not be adopted based on
an incomplete mitigation plan.
Stronger enforcement language needed
Commenters wanted to see stronger enforcement language
in the mitigation plan to assure mitigation will occur.
Further environmental study needed
Commenters wanted to see further environmental study
completed such as an Environmental Impact State (EIS).
Lack of alternative scenarios
Commenters wanted to see alternative scenarios considered
in the AUAR such as preserving agriculture or a lower impact
development.
Future study reliance
Commenters were concerned that the AUAR stated there
were next steps needed such as future environmental
reviews or additional studies.
Cumulative impacts/effects insufficient
Commenters were concerned that the cumulative effects
section of the AUAR was insufficient and didn’t capture all
the potential effects from the scenarios.
Definitions/other environmental thresholds
Commenters asked for more clarity on definitions of terms
and thresholds for other environmental reviews that may be
needed when specific project information is known.
Incomplete mitigation
The mitigation plan in the Final AUAR
represents the summary of next steps and
permits/approvals needed and the format of
the AUAR evaluation. It is based on state
and local agency review with all information
and assumptions known at this time. Given
the nature of an AUAR as a planning
document, the city cannot provide exact
timelines for mitigation at this time. The city
has added responsible parties to the
mitigation plan steps in the Final AUAR. The
permitting matrix in Table 6 describes which
agencies are responsible for enforcing
permitting and approval prior to project
construction.
Stronger enforcement language needed
Where possible, the mitigation plan has
been updated to reflect which steps are
required, and which steps require
consideration, as development advances.
The city will ensure all items of the
mitigation plan that the city has jurisdiction
over be completed prior to construction.
Development in either scenario is also
subject to the additional regulations
applicable for development within the city,
which are detailed also within the AUAR.
25
Further environmental study needed
Scenarios 1 and 2 represent the maximum
development capacity environmental
impacts studied in this AUAR. Any developer
that proposes environmental impacts worse
than what the city studied in this document,
would either have to amend this AUAR or
prepare a new environmental document.
The Final AUAR has also been updated to
explain the threshold triggers for additional
areas that might require future
environmental reviews.
Minnesota Rules part 4410 details the
requirements for when the preparation of
an environmental review is required.
Development under Scenario 1 is anticipated
to meet the State’s mandatory requirements
for an environmental review process based
on Minnesota Rules 4410.4400. Minnesota
Rule 4410.3610 allows for an alternative
form of review through an AUAR for
qualifying projects, including these
scenarios. An AUAR is a planning document
which provides an evaluation of the
environmental impacts of future
development, and the opportunity to
manage and mitigate those impacts. The
information and comments gathered during
an AUAR process assist communities as they
contemplate local planning and zoning
decisions.
26
Comment Theme Summary Response
Additionally, the city determined that the
AUAR would also undergo the scoping
procedures for “large specific projects”
detailed in Minn. R. 4410.3610, subp5a(A).
While potential land use could include a
technology campus/data center under
Scenario 1, a specific user, set of users or
project has not been identified for either
scenario and therefore an EIS would not be
the appropriate form of environmental
review.
27
Lack of alternative scenarios
The city prepared this AUAR to be consistent
with the Monticello 2040 Comprehensive
Plan which identifies the study area as a
future Light Industrial Park. Scenarios 1 and
2 both align with this future land use, with
Scenario 2 distinct in that it does not
anticipate a technology campus as a primary
use of the study area. Conservation-based
scenarios, mixed-use alternatives, and
agricultural preservation or parkland
alternatives would not be consistent with
the comprehensive plan. The city and
comments received did not identify
alternatives to the chosen scenarios during
the scoping process. It is acceptable and
possible for a developer to develop a light
industrial park below the maximum
development capacity impact thresholds
identified in this AUAR document.
Future study reliance
According to the EQB’s Quick Reference:
Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR),
“an AUAR is a planning tool to understand
how different development scenarios will
affect the environment of their community
before the development occurs.” Whereas
an environmental assessment worksheet
(EAW) and environmental impact statement
(EIS) study a single project, an AUAR studies
multiple development land use scenarios
that may comprise of several potential
projects (Minn. R. 4410.3610.). Often, full
28
development of the selected development
scenario is years away and certain details of
each project or development within the
study area are not fully identified in the
AUAR. The AUAR rules were developed to
recognize that certain assumptions would
need to be made to evaluate a land use
scenario(s). The rules require that any
assumptions be included in the AUAR. The
rules prevent these assumptions from being
used to undermine environmental review by
providing that future projects included in
the AUAR are only exempt from
environmental review if they are consistent
with the AUAR’s assumptions. If the
development proposal diverges materially
from the assumptions and mitigation plan,
then the AUAR must be updated for that
specific development. Additionally, the
AUAR must be updated every five years until
all development within the area receives
final approval by the RGU.
Cumulative effects insufficient
Item 21, Cumulative Potential Effects, lists
out the one reasonably foreseeable project
that may interact with the environmental
effects of the development scenarios. Item
21 has been updated in the Final AUAR to
explain how specific impact areas like water,
wastewater, and transportation may be
affected by multiple projects. Item 21 also
identifies potential studies and mitigation
strategies for the cumulative effects of
29
Comment Theme Summary Response
future development outside of the AUAR
study area.
Definitions/other environmental thresholds
An acronym list has been added to the top
of the Final AUAR. Additionally, where other
environmental reviews are referenced, the
specific thresholds have been added.
Ordinance
Setbacks
Commenters asked for the city to reconsider setback
requirements for data centers due to potential noise and
visual impacts.
Setbacks
The city is currently conducting public
engagement on a Data Center Planned-use
Development District. Commenters are
encouraged to provide feedback on noise
and light requirements for this zoning
classification.
30
Other
Quality of life/general opposition to data centers
Commenters expressed their opposition to data centers in
general and concern about their quality of life declining with
a data center in their neighborhood.
Property values
Commenters were concerned about decreases to their
property values due to nearby data center development.
Limited community benefit
Commenters expressed concern that data centers would
bring limited community benefit. They were worried about
large impacts on natural resources and the limited number of
new jobs associated with data center development.
Community character
Commenters expressed concern that data centers are not in
line with Monticello’s community character.
Rapid increase in AI/data centers
Commenters expressed concern in general about the rapid
increase in AI use and data centers being built.
More in depth earthwork analysis
Commenters asked for more in depth analysis of earthwork
needs in the AUAR.
Quality of life/general opposition to data
centers
This AUAR is not an endorsement or
approval for any projects allowed under the
development scenarios. See Table 6 of the
AUAR for a comprehensive list of remaining
permits and approvals that would be
required prior to construction.
Property values
Property values are not an evaluation
criteria within the AUAR. The city is
currently evaluating a DCPUD ordinance
which is intended to address land use
impacts and comments are encouraged to
address such impacts during that process.
Limited community benefit
If a future development within the study
area is a data center, it can bring several
benefits to communities, including:
1. Job Creation: They generate a range
of job opportunities, from
construction during the building
phase to ongoing roles in
management, operations,
maintenance, and security.
2. Economic Impact: The presence of a
data center can stimulate local
economies through increased
business for nearby vendors and
services. This includes everything
from local construction firms, to
electricians, to catering services.
31
3. Infrastructure Improvements: Often,
the establishment of a data center
leads to improvements in local
infrastructure, such as better roads,
enhanced electrical grids, and
stronger internet connectivity,
which can benefit residents and
businesses.
4. Technological Advancements: Data
centers can drive technological
growth and innovation within the
community, potentially attracting
other tech-focused businesses and
startups.
5. Tax Revenue: Data centers
contribute to local tax revenues,
which can be used to fund public
services, schools, and community
projects.
6. Environmental Initiatives: Modern
data centers often incorporate
sustainable practices and can
spearhead local green tech
initiatives, such as renewable energy
projects and energy-efficient
technologies.
7. Emergency Services: They can
provide essential backup and data
storage for local governments and
businesses, enhancing community
resilience in emergencies or natural
disasters.
Community character
32
Comment Theme Summary Response
Future development will be required to
comply with all city ordinances, obtain
associated local, state, and federal permits
and complete the AUAR mitigation plan.
Rapid increase in AI/data centers
The City’s 2040 Plan for the Light Industrial
Park designation includes a reference to
evaluation of available land area to
accomplish its land use objectives, which is
intended to provide for evaluation of data
center projects against the city’s land supply
for other industrial land use goals.
More in depth earthwork analysis
It is anticipated that for both development
scenarios, the raw earthwork can be
generally balanced on the site to maintain
the existing drainage patterns. This
earthwork will be compliant with the city
shoreland ordinance. Where appropriate,
slope stabilization will be provided by means
of vegetation establishment, erosion control
blankets, or other standard methods of
erosion and sediment control. More
information about earthwork needs will be
known as a specific project advances.
33
List of Public Commenters and Comment Themes:
1. Bill Keenan
• Health impacts
• Contamination
• Noise
2. Candace Seidl
• Groundwater/wastewater/RIB
• Environmental review
• Stormwater
• Transportation/traffic impacts
• Air quality
• Noise
• Health impacts
• Loss of land/ conversion of land
3. Scott Nelson
• Environmental review
• Noise
• Visual impacts
4. Steven & Allie VanVleet
• Energy
• Health impacts
• Water use/ drinking water
• Noise
• Other e.g. property values
• Loss of land/ conversion of land
• Air impacts
5. Erin Jones
• Health impacts
• Economic and utility impacts
• Environmental impacts
• Other e.g. quality of life
• Request for action and ethical considerations
6. Beth Heck
34
• Rapid increase in data centers
7. Ben Pupeza
• Noise impacts
• Property values
8. Lysa Holmstrom
• Noise
• Rapid increase in data centers
• Health impacts
9. Laura Pelant
• Rapid increase of data centers
• Infrastructure and financial burden
• Limited job opportunities
• Noise and lighting
• Health impacts
• Land conversion
• Water resources
10. Krystal Fair
• Quality of life/general opposition to data centers
• Groundwater/Wastewater/RIB
• Limited community benefits
• Surface water
• Health impacts
• Land conversion (loss of farmland)
11. Brooke Blomker
• Energy
• Groundwater/Wastewater/RIB
• Health impacts
• Contamination
• Habitat/Wildlife
• Noise and lighting
• Emissions
• Loss of land/conversion of land
• Community character
35
12. Wayne Johnson
• Existing contamination
13. Joe Kraft
• Groundwater/Wastewater/RIB
• Contamination
• Transportation/traffic impacts
• Noise
• Wetlands
• Air impacts
14. Alexander Coady
• General opposition to data centers
• Health impacts
15. Stephanie Reichert
• Noise and lighting
• Emissions
• Health impacts
• Traffic impacts
16. Scott Cutsforth
• Groundwater/Wastewater/RIB
• Water use/drinking water
• Noise
• Contamination
17. Iris Harris
• Environmental review
• Ordinance
• Water use/drinking water
• Noise and lighting
• Emissions
• Health impacts
• Property values
18. Kay LaMaie
• Noise
• Health impacts
36
• Limited community benefits
19. Shannon Bye
• Environmental review
• Surface and groundwater/wetlands/quality
• Cumulative impacts
• Transportation and freight impacts
• Land use compatibility
• Utility and public services
20. Peggy Jensen
• Noise and lighting
• Energy
• Groundwater/wastewater/RIB
• Property values
• Habitat/Wildlife
• Limited community benefits
• Loss of land/conversion of land
21. Gabe & Hannah Graveldinger
• Loss of land/conversion of land
• Groundwater/wastewater/RIB
22. MCEA
• Health impacts
• Environmental review
• Emissions
• Energy
• Water
• Noise and lighting
• Cumulative impacts
23. Emma Huntzinger
• Limited community benefits
• Groundwater/wastewater/RIB
• Energy
• Surface water
• Property values
37
• Noise impacts
24. Barb Tummel
• Noise
• Health impacts
• Community character
25. Jenna VanDenBoom
• Environmental review
• Loss of land/conversion of land
• Emissions
• Noise
• Health impacts
• Energy
• Groundwater/Wastewater/RIB
• Property values
• Limited community benefits
• Traffic and transportation impacts
• General opposition to data centers
26. Lisa Keenan
• Health impacts
• Loss of land/conversion of land
• Limited community benefits
• Property values
• Groundwater/Wastewater/RIB
• Noise
• Contamination
• Environmental review
27. Elisabeth Gliddon
• Environmental review
• ordinance
• Groundwater/Wastewater/RIB
• Contamination
• Loss of land/conversion of land
• Energy
38
• Health impacts
28. Debra Campbell
• Environmental review
• Health impacts
• Emissions
• Noise
• Loss of land/conversion of land
29. Scott Hill
• Surface water
• Stormwater
• Environmental review
30. Mary Zierke
• General opposition to data center
31. Jan Davis
• Limited community benefit
• Energy
• Noise
• Surface water
• Habitat/Wildlife
32. Adam Felix
• Environmental review
• Limited community benefits
• Land use
33. Dennis DuFrane
• Environmental review
• Groundwater/Wastewater/RIB
• Contamination
34. Chace Huntzinger
• Energy
• Environmental impacts
• Contamination
• Noise
• Health impacts
39
• Property value
35. Laura Bishop
• Lack of alternative scenarios
• Noise
• Habitat/wildlife
• Groundwater/Wastewater/RIB
• Electricity
• Limited community benefits
• Climate
36. Scott Zettervall
• Groundwater/Wastewater/RIB
• Health impacts
37. Kate Brown
• Health impacts
• Electricity
• Noise and lighting
• General opposition to data centers
38. Bernad Lang
• Electricity
• Health impacts
• Emissions
• Property values
• Noise
• Community character
• Loss of land/conversion of land
39. Fam Oli
• Environmental review
• Groundwater/Wastewater/RIB
• Habitat/wildlife
• Climate
• Noise
• Loss of land/conversion of land
• Contamination
40
• Health impacts
40. Alexander Cutchey
• Environmental review
• Ordinance
41. Elena Patterson
• Environmental review
• Loss of land/conversion of land
• Groundwater/Wastewater/RIB
• Climate change
• Surface water
• Limited community benefits
• Health impacts
42. Theodore Keith
• Noise
• Ordinance
• Habitat/wildlife
43. Ty Weiss
• Environmental impacts
• Groundwater/wastewater/RIB
• Loss of land/conversion of land
• Health impacts
• Community character
44. Danielle Murdoff
• Emissions
• Limited community benefits
45. Daniel DiLorenzo
• Energy
• Groundwater/Wastewater/RIB
• Limited community benefits
• Property values
46. Nita Ceron
• Loss of land/conversion of land
• Limited community benefits
41
• Community character
• Climate
• Noise
• Environmental review
47. Rita Howell
• Limited community benefits
48. Feanna Sobania
• Habitat/wildlife
49. Bethany Olivares
• Environmental review
• Water resources
• Habitat/wildlife
• Noise/light
• Emissions
50. Kara Rud
• Noise
• Energy demand
• Water resources
51. Nora Greteman
• Transportation
• Habitat/wildlife
Appendix G:
Comments
From:Munsell, Anneka (She/Her/Hers) (MDH)
To:Angela Schumann
Cc:Shea, Abby (She/Her/Hers) (MDH); Woodside, John (MDH); Robertson, Steve (MDH); Bell, David (MDH)
Subject:Monticello Industrial AUAR - MDH Comments
Date:Wednesday, December 10, 2025 2:12:58 PM
Attachments:Outlook-MDH on Fac.png
Outlook-MDH on X.png
Outlook-MDH on Lin.png
Outlook-MDH on Ins.png
Outlook-MDH on You.png
Outlook-MDH on Thr.png
Good afternoon,
Staff in the Source Water Protection Unit at the Minnesota Department of Health have reviewed the
Draft Monticello Industrial AUAR and have no comments. We appreciate that the AUAR includes the
corrections and suggestions from MDH during the AUAR Scoping.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide input.
Please reach out if you have questions or concerns.
Anneka Munsell PE
Hydrologist | Source Water Protection
Minnesota Department of Health
Office: 651-201-5841
Minnesota Department of Health
District 3 - Planning
7694 Industrial Park Road
Baxter, MN 56425
218/828-5700 or 1-800-657-3971
An equal opportunity employer
December 17, 2025
Angela Schumann
Community development Director
505 Walnut Street
Monticello, MN 55362
Angela.Schumann@MonticelloMN.gov
RE: Monticello Industrial AUAR Review and Comment
Dear Ms. Schumann:
Thank you for providing information to MnDOT District 3 regarding the Monticello Industrial AUAR.
After reviewing the AUAR MNDOT District 3 has the following comments:
- If future development occurs on the parcels indicated in the AUAR MnDOT would apply our urbanizing
access spacing (e.g., ½-mile to 1-mile) to this area as it is being transitioned from rural to urban with this
development.
- If future development occurs on the parcels indicated, it is likely that increased traffic impacts to the
intersection of MN 25 and 85th St NE could occur which could in turn result in the need for intersection
improvements potentially up to and including a roundabout.
- We look forward to reviewing and providing comments should additional changes or developments be
proposed.
If you have any questions, comments, or would like to discuss further please don’t hesitate to call me at
(218)820.9281
Sincerely,
Tad Erickson
Principal Planner
ecc: MnDOT District 3 Development Review Committee File
December 18, 2025
VIA EMAIL
Angela Schumann
City of Monticello
505 Walnut Street
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
angela.schumann@monticellomn.gov
RE: Monticello Industrial – Draft Alternative Urban Areawide Review
Dear Angela Schumann:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Alternative Urban Areawide Review
(DAUAR) for the Monticello Industrial project (Project) located in Wright County, Minnesota. The Project
consists of two scenarios. Scenario 1 includes multiple buildings for a total of up to 3,000,000 square
feet of a proposed technology park/campus development (Figure 3). Scenario 1 could include a data
center, research and design facilities, technology laboratories or research park uses. These types of uses
are expected to also include the need to build additional electrical substations, transmission lines and
backup generators. For the purposes of impact evaluation, this scenario assumes a data center campus,
with 5 to 10 principal buildings, approximately 200,000 to 400,000 square feet per building with a few
ancillary support buildings. Scenario 1 is expected to follow a similar life cycle of other typical light
industrial developments. With most technology park campuses, including data centers, the exterior shell
of the buildings are anticipated to be used over many decades, while the internal components are
upgraded periodically as technology advances. Scenario 2 includes multiple buildings for a total of up to
5,000,000 square feet of light industrial land use based on the city of Monticello’s adopted land use plan
(Figure 4). Scenario 2 could include process and production manufacturing which uses moderate
amounts of partially processed materials, warehousing and distribution, machine shops, computer
technology including office and research development facilities (but not including data centers as a
singular principal use), professional and corporate offices and industrial engineering facilities. For the
purposes of impact evaluation, this scenario assumes a light industrial park type development that could
include 5 to 20 buildings that range from approximately 20,000 to 1 million square feet. Generally, light
industrial. Regarding matters for which the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has regulatory
responsibility and other interests, the MPCA staff has the following comments for your consideration.
Wastewater
• Section 11.a. states that a Geotechnical Evaluation was completed for the study area. A copy of
that report should be included in the DAUAR.
• Section 12.b.i.1) states that if a proposed 36-inch trunk sewer line capacity exceeds 2 million
gallons per day (mgd) that a separate EAW would be required with the MPCA as the Responsible
Governmental Unit (RGU).
• The correct requirement for Monticello is Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 18(A). This subpart
requires an EAW for expansion, modification or replacement of a municipal sewage
Angela Schumann
Page 2
December 18, 2025
collection system resulting in an increase in design average daily flow of any part of that
system by 1,000,000 gallons per day or more if the discharge is to a wastewater treatment
facility with a capacity less than 20,000,000 gallons per day, the MPCA is the RGU.
• The DAUAR stated that additional hydrogeological analysis is needed for the Rapid Infiltration
Basin (RIB). Since the RIB is the sole method discussed for cooling water discharge, more details
regarding capability of the soil and geology to infiltrate the large volume of water should be
included. Until that is completed it is not possible to determine whether a RIB is feasible or
permittable.
• If it is found that the soils are not suitable for infiltration of the cooling water, other options that
are being considered for discharge should be discussed.
• RIB systems for this waste type have not typically been permitted in Minnesota. Thorough
characterization of the site, hydrogeology and wastewater characteristics will be needed to
assess the viability of the proposed system. If the system is permitted, ongoing monitoring will
be needed to ensure that the system is performing as expected and is protective of resources.
• In addition to the high volume of cooling water discharged, there will be infiltration of onsite
stormwater. The impacts to groundwater and surface waters from infiltrating large volumes of
water and the temperature of the cooling water should be discussed in more detail. Impacts to
area groundwater elevations and potential areas of groundwater discharge to surface waters
should be included. High temperature discharges may impact both underlying geology and
groundwater discharges to surface waters and this should be discussed in more detail.
• The DAUAR refers to the RIB as a filter for the water to reaching the groundwater. The RIB may
provide filtration of particulates, but it would not be expected to provide significant removal of
dissolved pollutants. It would be expected that the cooling wastewater should be relatively low
in particulates but potentially high in dissolved parameters. The levels of the dissolved
parameters in the wastewater that is proposed to be infiltrated should be defined to ensure that
water quality standards (Class I drinking water standards) are maintained in the groundwater.
• It is not clear if any pretreatment would be needed (or if pretreatment waste streams will be
generated) to condition the water for use in the cooling system (e.g., iron/manganese removal,
softening, etc.). Treatment and treatment waste streams will affect discharge quality and
potential permitting.
• It is not clear if any chemical additives would be required to condition the water for use in the
cooling system (e.g., chemicals for pH adjustment, microbial/biological control, corrosion,
passivation, etc.). Chemical additives will affect discharge quality and potential permitting.
• In Section 8, Table 3 lists the existing and proposed cover types and includes stormwater
treatment and infiltration area. A similar estimate of the area required for storage and
infiltration of cooling water should be included.
Construction Stormwater
• During construction, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction
Stormwater General Permit requires preserving a 50-foot natural buffer around wetlands, rather
than the 20-foot buffer referenced in Section 12.b.ii. If maintaining the required buffer is not
feasible, the reason must be documented in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
and redundant perimeter sediment control best management practices (BMPs) must be
installed.
• The proposed infiltration practices must meet the 48-hour drawdown requirement and be sized
to ensure proper maintenance access and long-term functionality. As found in the Minnesota
Angela Schumann
Page 3
December 18, 2025
Stormwater Manual, it is highly recommended that infiltration basins have a maximum
contributing drainage area of 50-acres with a maximum 5:1 ratio of impervious area to
infiltration area.
Air
• Air quality analysis:
• The DAUAR addresses the vehicular emissions expected from the proposed Project by using
the Minnesota Department of Transportation screening method designed to identify
intersections that will not cause a carbon monoxide emissions impacts above the standards.
The DAUAR has done a detailed traffic impact study analysis to determine the impacts of the
proposed Project on air quality. The DAUAR should have used the assessment of this traffic
study to determine the Project’s effect on air quality rather than the screening method. This
would have provided the Project’s traffic generation impacts on air emissions. It would have
also assessed the Project’s vehicle related emissions’ effects air quality. Based on this
information, then it would been easier to determine if any mitigation measures are required
for the proposed Project.
• For a project of this size being planned, the DAUAR should have provided a qualitative
discussion of other pollutants including PM2.5 NOx.
Traffic
• Traffic impact analysis:
• The DAUAR has done a great job in conducting a detailed traffic impact analysis study and
included in the DAUAR as an Appendix. The study discussed the Project’s impact on the
regional transportation system and the impacts of the Project’s generated traffic would
have on the surrounding area. Based in the detailed study some traffic improvements
proposed in the DAUAR must be implemented to reduce the expected impacts.
Watershed
• On pages 14, 59, and 101, The document refers to a “chloride management plan” that will be
implemented for every project requiring an NPDES permit. Although there is brief mention of
three possible elements of these plans on page 101, a more detailed description of the elements
of such a plan could easily be added here in an appendix. As chloride management is an
extremely important consideration in Minnesota’s climate, please provide better descriptions of
what such a plan might entail.
• Water Resources: Although Paradise and Gilchrist Lakes are not listed as impaired, in both cases
this is a result of a lack of data, not necessarily because the lakes are healthy. The MN DNR
Lakefinder (Minnesota LakeBrowser) indicates that water clarity in Gilchrist Lake (there is no
data on Paradise) has improved slightly over the last 50 years, but as a shallow lake with a
maximum depth of 9 feet, the lake will be vulnerable to any changes in the watershed. Both
Paradise and Gilchrist appear to be hydrologically connected to the AUAR area, so please put
greater consideration to protecting these surface waters and greater description as to what the
potential water quality and water volume impacts to these waters might be, particularly as
wetland 4 appears to feed both lakes. Impervious surface and runoff both have the potential to
alter conditions in wetland 4.
• Page 25-Table 7, Item “c”- Would these impacts also include water usage? As the AUAR
indicates that additional appropriation of groundwater over and above what is currently
Angela Schumann
Page 4
December 18, 2025
permitted by the DNR will occur as the site is developed, what impact might this have on current
and future residential development in the area?
• Page 69-Item 1- The document states that “the developer will classify the wetlands using the
Minnesota Routine Assessment Method (MnRAM) prior to construction.” From the Board of Soil
and Water Resources (BWSR) website: “ While the principles and logic behind MnRAM remain
sound, using MnRAM output as the sole means to compare wetlands when making wetland
permitting/impact decisions is discouraged by BWSR. MnRAM lacks the precision to make very
specific comparisons in these situations. However, MnRAM outputs can be useful when used in
conjunction with other characteristics and professional judgment.” Any wetland delineations or
functional assessments should be completed only by qualified, trained, and certified (if
applicable) wetland professionals.
• Page 102, Table 26, “geology, Soils, and Topography”- The language in the document appears
confused about what is required with regard to the NPDES Construction stormwater permit. The
“SWPPP” is a requirement of the permit and not the permit itself, and the acronym “SWPPP” in
this case refers to a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, not a “program.” The Stormwater
Pollution Prevention “Program” is a requirement of the MS4 program, not construction
stormwater.
We appreciate the opportunity to review this Project. Please be aware that this letter does not
constitute approval by the MPCA of any or all elements of the Project for the purpose of pending or
future permit actions by the MPCA. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the Project Proposer to secure
any required permits and to comply with any requisite permit conditions. If you have any questions
concerning our review of this EAW, please contact me by email at chris.green@state.mn.us or by
telephone at 507-476-4258.
Sincerely,
Chris Green
This document has been electronically signed.
Chris Green, Project Manager
Environmental Review Unit
Resource Management and Assistance Division
CG:rs
Attachment
cc: Brian Timerson, MPCA (w/attachment)
Melinda Neville, MPCA (w/attachment)
Christopher Lundeen, MPCA (w/attachment)
Matthew Moon, MPCA (w/attachment)
Jeffrey Hedman, MPCA (w/attachment)
Colin Boysen, MPCA (w/attachment)
Lauren Dickerson, MPCA (w/attachment)
Innocent Eyoh, MPCA (w/attachment)
Deepa deAlwis, MPCA (w/attachment)
cc: continued next page.
Angela Schumann
Page 5
December 18, 2025
Nicole Peterson, MPCA (w/attachment)
David Sahli, MPCA (w/attachment)
Julie Henderson, MPCA (w/attachment)
Katrina Hapka, MPCA (w/attachment)
1
Division of Ecological and Water Resources Transmitted by Email
Region 3 Headquarters
1200 Warner Road
Saint Paul, MN 55106
December 18, 2025
Angela Schumann
Community Development Director
City of Monticello
505 Walnut Street
Monticello, MN 55362
Dear Angela Schumann,
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Monticello Industrial Draft Alternative Urban Areawide
Review (AUAR) for the project area located in Wright County. The DNR respectfully submits the
following comments for your consideration:
1. Page 44-49, Wastewater, Scenario 1. This section states that non-contact cooling water would
be circulated two or more times before being discharged to groundwater through a Rapid
Infiltration Basin. More information should be provided on the limitations of cooling water
recirculation that prevent further re-use. Also, how is cooling water altered before being
discharged back to groundwater? Is it softened? Is F-gas used in the cooling process? If so,
would the cooling water free of contaminants, including PFAS, before being discharged back to
groundwater?
2. Page 76, Section 14.c. There is limited discussion of impacts to non-rare features (wildlife and
undeveloped vegetation). The AUAR acknowledges potential impacts to Blanding’s turtles but
does not discuss how the species may be impacted. Development of upland areas may remove
nesting and foraging areas and impacts to wetlands may harm over wintering turtles or destroy
habitat used for foraging and/or basking.
3. Page 85, Table 22: Annual Operational Emissions. The estimated emissions for building energy
consumption for Scenario 1 were based on a typical light industrial user according to the
section footnote. The AUAR acknowledges that data centers have different impacts from other
industrial users prompting the City to create a Data Center Planned Unity Development Zoning
Ordinance to address these specific impacts. This section should utilize estimates that more
accurately reflect the energy use of a data center. Without realistic energy use estimates, it is
difficult to compare scenarios, anticipate potential cumulative effects or draft a comprehensive
mitigation plan.
2
Thank you again for the opportunity to review this document. Please let me know if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
Melissa Collins
Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist | Ecological and Water Resources
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Phone: 651-259-5755
Email: melissa.collins@state.mn.us
CC: Nick Frattalone, Monticello Tech, LLC
Equal Opportunity Employer
From:Alexander Coady
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Re: Monticello Industrial Development - Draft AUAR
Date:Wednesday, November 19, 2025 11:08:51 AM
Attachments:image001.png
image001.png
I still dont understand why "no data centers in monticello" isn't an option that even remotely
seems to be on the table. I feel like me and a bunch of people have been very clear on not
wanting these things in our town, yet the conversation on how to make data centers work
persists. It makes me feel belittled, unheard, and not well represented by the council, and the
stress has been having a negative impact on my health.
On Wed, Nov 19, 2025, 10:57 AM Angela Schumann
<Angela.Schumann@monticellomn.gov> wrote:
On behalf of the City of Monticello, please find below a link to the Draft AUAR and
Mitigation Plan for the Monticello Industrial Development study area. The City of
Monticello approved the Draft AUAR and Mitigation Plan for distribution at the November
10, 2025, City Council Meeting.
Environmental Reviews | Monticello, MN
The AUAR process provides local governments with the opportunity to evaluate how
different land uses may impact the community's environment, providing environmental
analysis before major development occurs and helping inform future land use decisions. An
AUAR is not a project approval document; it provides information useful to planning for the
management and mitigation of impacts.
The Monticello Industrial AUAR evaluates two development land use scenarios, a light
industrial park land use scenario as outlined in the Monticello 2040 Comprehensive Plan and
a technology campus (data center) land use scenario. This AUAR study area encompasses
approximately 550 acres on 16 parcels in Monticello Township, Minnesota. The study area
is comprised of land generally located south of 85th St NE, west of Edmonson Ave NE, and
east of Davidson Ave NE, within the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area.
The public is invited to review and provide comment on the Draft AUAR and mitigation
plan. You are receiving this email because you have previously provided comments on the
Monticello Industrial AUAR Scoping Document.
The 30-day comment period began on November 18, 2025. Comments will be accepted
through 4:00 PM on December 18, 2025, and should be addressed to:
angela.schumann@monticellomn.gov.
An Open House on Thursday, November 20, 2025 is also scheduled as an opportunity for
additional public information and feedback on the Monticello Industrial AUAR. The Open
House will be held from 6-8 PM at the Monticello Community Center.
Angela Schumann
Community Development Director
Development Services
763-271-3224
505 Walnut St, Suite 1, Monticello, MN 55362
MonticelloMN.gov | Facebook | Subscribe to E-News
Email correspondence to and from the City of Monticello government offices is subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices
Act and may be disclosed to third parties.
From:Feanna Sobania
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:AUAR
Date:Wednesday, November 19, 2025 11:40:06 AM
I’m writing to share my concerns about the two development options in the Monticello AUAR
(Monticello Industrial AUAR, November 2025). Even though the report talks about
“responsible mitigation,” the truth is simple, responsible destruction is still destruction.
The AUAR shows that trees, wetlands, and natural areas will be removed (AUAR Table 3,
Table 5). Replanting trees is helpful, but new trees will take decades to replace what is lost.
Wetlands that formed naturally over hundreds of years cannot be fully recreated somewhere
else. Once soil is compacted and the land is graded for buildings and parking lots, the original
landscape, water flow, and wildlife habitat are permanently changed (AUAR Sections 11–12).
The City’s Water Resources Management Plan (2019) and Wetland Overlay rules help reduce
damage, but they do not stop these long-term impacts. The AUAR also cites climate data
showing heavier future rainfall and higher flood risks (NOAA CMRA; EPA CREAT; AUAR
Section 7). This means every acre of nature we remove will matter even more in the future.
Monticello has already shown there are better ways to grow. The Block 52 project downtown
is a great example. It reused space we already had, strengthened the city core, supported local
business, and did not require paving over hundreds of acres of farmland and natural land. This
type of project fits with the Monticello 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which encourages infill
development, redevelopment, and making better use of existing city areas before expanding
outward (2040 Plan, Chapter 3).
The AUAR also references the City’s Natural Resource Inventory & Assessment (2008),
which highlights the importance of protecting natural corridors and reducing fragmentation.
Large-scale outward development goes against these recommendations by breaking up natural
areas the city has already identified as valuable.
Thank you for your consideration,
Feanna Sobania
Monticello resident
From:bil keenan
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Data ordinance.
Date:Thursday, November 20, 2025 12:55:32 PM
Good Morning Angela. I will not be able to attend the early meeting but will slip in for the
later meeting. I read thru the ordinance and it doesnt look all that much different than the
original ideas. 300 feet for a setback is far too low. The City of Monticello has the power,
for now to control this and they are caving to big tech. That should be 1000 feet minimum
and I see they went with the standard decibel levels.
MPCA standard levels are too low, especially based on the type of frequency the noise will be.
Human brains can not block it out, and it is shown to cause health issues.
There is 550 acres available with a proposed 3,000,000 square feet ( which is around 70
acres). That leaves 480 acres as a buffer unless there is future development planned that we
do not know about. 300 feet should not be an option. 1000 feet minimum.
My question is after reading the enviromental study is
there is a woodland low area that has been used as a dumping ground for years. This would be
in the field next to our property I did not see anything about abandoned vehicles and rusted
out 55 gallon drums ( who knows what were in them) in the report. I would think that should
have been disclosed initially. It will get buried by Frattlone and no one will say a thing.
Another question is, I see more and more investors shorting the AI market ( particularly
Nvidia) for a potential bubble bust. Is Monticello concerned about this? The city of Monticello
will be putting a crazy amount of infrastructure in for something that could be gone in 10
years
This whole thing is absolutely disgusting. I am hoping the city council will say no to the
ordinance but I do not feel confident they will. They could at the very least table it for a year
and watch what other cities are doing and the market.
MPCA standard levels are too low, especially based on the type of frequency the noise will be.
Human brains cannot block it out and it is shown to cause health issues.
So much for public input. Very disheartening, but I do not think that anyone is suprised.
My question is after reading the enviromental study is
there is a woodland low area that has been used a dumping ground for years. I did not see
anything about abandoned vehicles and rusted out 55 gallon drums ( who knows what were in
them) in the report. I would think that should have been disclosed initially. It will get
buried by Frattlone and no one will say a thing.
My other question is, I see more and more investors are shorting the AI market ( particularly
Nvidia) for a potential bubble bust. Is Monticello concerned about this? The city of
Monticello will be putting a crazy amount of infrastructure in for something that could be
gone in 10 years.
MPCA standard levels are too low, especially based on the type of frequency the noise will be.
Human brains cannot block it out and it is shown to cause health issues.
From:Scott Nelson
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Detailed Comments on Draft Monticello Industrial AUAR and Mitigation Plan
Date:Thursday, November 20, 2025 11:11:21 AM
Hi Angela,
Thank you for distributing the Draft AUAR and Mitigation Plan for the Monticello Industrial
area. I spent time reading through the document in detail and wanted to share several specific
concerns related to nighttime lighting and mechanical noise. These issues appear repeatedly
throughout the AUAR but are not addressed with the level of technical clarity needed to avoid
problems for nearby neighborhoods.
After reviewing Scenario 1 and Scenario 2, as well as the mitigation summaries, I noticed that
lighting requirements are described only in broad terms such as buffering, screening, and site
design. For example, Figures 3 and 4 show extensive new impervious areas, parking fields,
and potential mechanical yards, yet there are no measurable standards referenced for lighting
controls. Without technical specifications, developers could default to high intensity fixtures
similar to the existing commercial sites along the Highway 25 corridor. As you know, lighting
from Walmart, UMC Manufacturing, and Camping World already produces noticeable sky
glow and glare because none of those installations follow dark sky guidelines. Adding 500
acres of industrial or tech campus lighting without precise requirements would compound that
impact and surely drown out our current dark sky view, which allows us the ability to clearly
see stars, the Northern Lights (Like the amazing views we had last week) and even the Milky
Way on clear nights.
If the City intends to minimize residential lighting impacts, the mitigation plan needs
measurable criteria. Examples include:
• Full cutoff fixtures with zero uplight (BUG rating of U0)
• Color temperature limits of 2700K to 3000K
• Pole height limits of 20 to 25 feet unless fully shielded
• Maximum maintained illumination levels for parking areas (0.2 to 0.5 footcandles after
hours)
• Required dimming schedules for non security lighting
• Prohibition on upward directed flag lighting and façade lighting
• Use of backlight shields along property edges and wetlands
These are standard practices for dark night lighting control and can be verified with
photometric plans submitted during site review. Adding these to the mitigation plan would
ensure both scenarios are held to a consistent standard.
I also have concerns about mechanical noise, particularly in Scenario 1. The AUAR notes that
a technology campus may require electrical substations, transmission extensions, large cooling
equipment, and backup generators. However, the document does not include noise contour
modeling, nighttime sound propagation analysis, or equipment performance assumptions.
Minnesota’s industrial noise limits are based on older standards and do not address low
frequency noise, which is the most common source of complaints near data centers. Without
specific controls, low frequency hum from cooling systems or tonal noise from generators
could be audible well beyond the site boundary, especially at night.
To avoid this outcome, the mitigation plan should include:
• A maximum nighttime property line noise limit specifically applied to continuous
mechanical equipment
• Daytime only generator testing requirements
• Sound enclosures or noise walls for generators and mechanical yards
• Low frequency noise controls, such as silencers or vibration isolation
• Placement requirements that keep mechanical yards internal to the site
• Post installation sound verification by an independent acoustical engineer
These types of requirements are common in other cities that have approved data centers, and
they remove ambiguity by defining clear, enforceable expectations.
While I am not exclusively against any of the ideas laid out by the City on face value, I am
very concerned that the lack of clear standards and corrective actions for lighting and noise
will create undue and avoidable disruption for neighboring residents. I am also concerned that
these issues may not be actively monitored or consistently enforced if not fully incorporated
into the mitigation plan. For these reasons, I do not currently approve of the plan as it is
written and cannot support either of the scenarios presented in the draft.
Thank you for considering these comments. I am happy to clarify any of these points or
provide additional technical examples if helpful.
From:candace
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Re: Monticello Industrial Development - Draft AUAR
Date:Thursday, November 20, 2025 11:19:09 AM
Attachments:image001.png
Dear Ms. Schumann and Members of the City Council,
I am submitting this letter as part of the public comment period for the Monticello Industrial
Draft AUAR. After reviewing the document in detail, I have significant concerns regarding
completeness, accuracy, and adequacy of the environmental review presented. As written, this
AUAR does not meet the requirements of the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB)
and does not provide the public or decision-makers with the full information needed to
evaluate the true impacts of the proposed development.
The AUAR appears to have been prepared with the intent to justify development rather than to
objectively assess worst-case environmental impacts. Under state rules, an AUAR must
evaluate potential impacts comprehensively, conservatively, and with defensible technical
documentation. Unfortunately, that standard is not met in multiple sections of the current draft.
For the reasons outlined below, I am requesting that the City:
1. Reject the AUAR as incomplete,
2. Require significant revisions, and
3. Consider whether a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is necessary before any
approvals or annexation actions occur.
1. Groundwater Impacts Are Not Adequately
Assessed
Scenario 1 (technology campus) anticipates extremely high water use, yet the AUAR does not
provide:
A hydrogeological model of aquifer drawdown.
Analysis of impacts to private residential wells, shallow aquifers, or seasonal
fluctuations.
Cumulative groundwater demand impacts in combination with future city growth.
Engineering feasibility for the proposed Rapid Infiltration Basin (RIB) system.
Assessment of thermal impacts, temperature changes, or potential contamination risks.
Given that much of Monticello Township relies on private wells, the omission of aquifer
sustainability modeling represents a substantial deficiency.
Request:
A full groundwater analysis, including worst-case pumping for both scenarios, must be
completed before AUAR approval.
2. Surface Water & Stormwater Analyses Use
Outdated Data
Although the AUAR acknowledges changing precipitation patterns, it fails to model:
NOAA Atlas 14 updates or projected 2050–2080 storm intensities.
Downstream flooding impacts to County Ditch systems.
Increased runoff from converting ~444 acres of prime farmland (Table 3, p.18) to
impervious surface.
Flooding risk to nearby neighborhoods and planned residential developments.
Worst-case design must be shown; instead, the AUAR defers all critical detail to “future
design phases.”
Request:
Stormwater modeling using future climate projections and complete downstream hydrological
modeling.
3. Traffic & Transportation Impacts Are
Severely Underestimated
The transportation analysis (Tables 24 & 25) is narrowly focused and excludes:
Effects on Highway 25, County Road 39, and school routes.
Freight and heavy truck trips expected under Scenario 2.
Impacts on safety and emergency response times.
Road deterioration, noise, and long-term city maintenance costs.
Given the scale of the development—up to 5 million square feet—the traffic study is
insufficient for an AUAR.
Request:
A regional traffic impact analysis, including freight modeling, school traffic, and long-term
roadway maintenance.
4. Air Quality, Noise, and Health Impacts Are
Not Properly Addressed
The AUAR fails to evaluate:
Backup diesel generator emissions for Scenario 1.
Low-frequency and continuous cooling tower noise typical of data centers.
24/7 truck noise, idling, and loading activity for Scenario 2.
Cumulative health impacts on residents, especially children and elderly populations.
These omissions conflict with the AUAR requirement to evaluate worst-case impacts.
Request:
A Health Impact Assessment, diesel generator emissions modeling, and noise propagation
modeling for both scenarios.
5. Environmental, Habitat, and Farmland
Impacts Are Downplayed
The AUAR acknowledges that approximately 77% of the land is currently farmland of
statewide importance (Table 8, p.36), yet:
No alternatives that preserve agricultural use are considered.
Impacts to wildlife corridors and the planned greenway are dismissed.
Wetland hydrology and ecological connectivity are not studied in depth.
Given the scale of land conversion, this is a major deficiency.
Request:
Inclusion of land conservation alternatives and a full ecological connectivity assessment.
6. Cumulative Impacts Section Is Critically
Incomplete
The AUAR provides only minimal discussion of cumulative effects, failing to analyze:
Combined water, sewer, and power demand with ongoing city growth.
Combined regional traffic volumes.
Multi-source noise, air emissions, and long-term climate impacts.
This violates EQB AUAR guidance, which explicitly requires thorough cumulative analysis.
7. Mitigation Plan Is Vague and Not
Enforceable
The Draft Mitigation Plan (Table 26) lacks:
Quantitative thresholds
Timelines
Monitoring requirements
Assigned financial responsibility
Enforcement mechanisms
State law requires that mitigation in an AUAR be specific, detailed, and binding. This
mitigation plan does not meet that requirement.
8. Failure to Evaluate Reasonable Alternatives
The AUAR only evaluates two high-intensity industrial scenarios. It does not include:
A conservation-based alternative
Low-impact or mixed-use alternatives
Scaled-back development alternatives
Agricultural preservation or parkland alternatives
Minnesota environmental review rules require that an AUAR evaluate reasonable, feasible
alternatives. This AUAR does not.
Conclusion & Request for Action
Based on the concerns detailed above, I respectfully request that the City of Monticello:
Reject the current Draft AUAR as incomplete and inadequate,
Require significant revisions, including independent studies of groundwater,
stormwater, noise, traffic, and health impacts**,
Extend the public comment period after revisions are made,
Evaluate whether a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is warranted,
given the size, intensity, and risks associated with the proposed project.
This AUAR, as drafted, does not provide the community or decision-makers with the
information necessary to ensure the protection of public health, natural resources, and quality
of life for current and future residents.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments. I request written confirmation that these
concerns will be addressed in the revised AUAR.
Sincerely,
Candace Seidl
On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 10:57 AM Angela Schumann
<Angela.Schumann@monticellomn.gov> wrote:
On behalf of the City of Monticello, please find below a link to the Draft AUAR and
Mitigation Plan for the Monticello Industrial Development study area. The City of
Monticello approved the Draft AUAR and Mitigation Plan for distribution at the November
10, 2025, City Council Meeting.
Environmental Reviews | Monticello, MN
The AUAR process provides local governments with the opportunity to evaluate how
different land uses may impact the community's environment, providing environmental
analysis before major development occurs and helping inform future land use decisions. An
AUAR is not a project approval document; it provides information useful to planning for the
management and mitigation of impacts.
The Monticello Industrial AUAR evaluates two development land use scenarios, a light
industrial park land use scenario as outlined in the Monticello 2040 Comprehensive Plan and
a technology campus (data center) land use scenario. This AUAR study area encompasses
approximately 550 acres on 16 parcels in Monticello Township, Minnesota. The study area
is comprised of land generally located south of 85th St NE, west of Edmonson Ave NE, and
east of Davidson Ave NE, within the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area.
The public is invited to review and provide comment on the Draft AUAR and mitigation
plan. You are receiving this email because you have previously provided comments on the
Monticello Industrial AUAR Scoping Document.
The 30-day comment period began on November 18, 2025. Comments will be accepted
through 4:00 PM on December 18, 2025, and should be addressed to:
angela.schumann@monticellomn.gov.
An Open House on Thursday, November 20, 2025 is also scheduled as an opportunity for
additional public information and feedback on the Monticello Industrial AUAR. The Open
House will be held from 6-8 PM at the Monticello Community Center.
Angela Schumann
Community Development Director
Development Services
763-271-3224
505 Walnut St, Suite 1, Monticello, MN 55362
MonticelloMN.gov | Facebook | Subscribe to E-News
Email correspondence to and from the City of Monticello government offices is subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices
Act and may be disclosed to third parties.
From:DL Murdoff
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Greenhouse Gas Gases
Date:Friday, November 21, 2025 3:10:41 PM
Angela,
The greenhouse gas analysis projects that the project could produce 3,013,575 tons of
greenhouse gases per year--equivalent to 2.4% of ALL of Minnesota's current greenhouse gas
emissions.
This amount of greenhouse gas emissions is outrageous! This would result in the addition
of over 3 million tons of greenhouse gases to the environment every year, and it would
occur right here in Monticello. That’s a staggering amount.
To put into perspective, the Sherco power plant produced about 10.5 million tons of
greenhouse gases in 2022. They employed around 300 people (maybe 350).
From my understanding, the data center will create around 40 ongoing jobs (and won’t
really have the upswing of workers coming in for outages like the power plant). So when
you look at it from a greenhouse gas emissions standpoint. The data center creates more
yearly CO2 per employee than a coal power plant. YIKES!!!
Thanks,
Danielle L. Murdoff
My workdays are Tuesdays and Thursdays.
I usually reply within one workday.
Looking forward to connecting.
From:Gabe & Hannah Graveldinger
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Public comment on Data Centers
Date:Saturday, November 29, 2025 4:19:13 PM
Hello, Angela,
I would like to make this part of the comments for the City Council and Zoning Commission
to consider:
City Council has said it is listening to our concerns, they share those concerns, and those
concerns are being worked into the AUAR and proposed regulations. That’s great.
Suppose everything “passes”, and some future company[ies] is willing to meet all the
requirements/regulations set forth. We still have the problem that regardless of that, the
community does NOT want a data center, or even light industrial use of these areas,
regulations or otherwise. I would like the Council and all involved parties to consider: LET’S
JUST SAY NO.
These data centers would take hundreds of acres of land! We raise honeybees. We do not want
to see such a high loss of forage of native plants for our bees or any other local pollinators.
Pollinator species are struggling enough. Let’s just say no!
Our water resources are not infinite. Groundwater aquifers can only go so far.
Monticello is a fast-growing city. Is it drawing from the same aquifer as
neighboring cities? We have a private well drawing from those aquifers as well.
As these aquifers become depleted over time, cities may need to dig deeper
wells. People may need to dig deeper wells for their residents. Will we need to
ultimately ration water??
There is a hierarchy in Minnesota statute over water uses. Municipal uses are at
the top. And these data centers want to go under the city's permit. If there was a
time of scarcity, and we did have to do some rationing, municipal is the highest
use. So those data centers get into that highest use of municipal, which is above
agriculture. What will that do to farmers, livestock and crops? Let’s just say no!
Industrial buildings of any kind are known for being eyesores. They have their
place, but it such a residential/agricultural area, Industrial doesn’t “fit”. There is
a national housing crisis. Why are we not using these areas for natural
expansion of housing, yards and gardens?
These areas should be kept for agricultural and/or residential use. Let’s just say
no!
Please protect our land and resources!
Thank you,
Gabe & Hannah Graveldinger
From:Daniel DiLorenzo
To:Angela Schumann; Development Services
Subject:Opposition to Data Center Development in Monticello
Date:Monday, December 1, 2025 2:17:39 PM
Dear Members of the Monticello Planning Commission and City Council,
I am writing as a Monticello resident to express my strong opposition to allowing large-scale
data centers or “technology campuses” in our community.
I also want to note that I work a blue-collar job in the HVAC trade, which gives me firsthand
experience with mechanical systems, electrical loads, heat rejection, and the infrastructure
demands that large facilities place on a community. Because of this background, I am
especially aware of the scale of energy use, cooling requirements, and equipment stresses
involved in data center operations—and my concerns come from both a resident’s and a
technician’s perspective.
From my viewpoint, the risks and costs to residents clearly outweigh any potential benefits
that have been mentioned so far. Specifically:
• Energy and grid strain: Data centers are enormous electricity users. They threaten to
put long-term strain on our local grid, increase the risk of outages, and potentially drive
up utility rates for everyday residents and small businesses—people who do not have the
resources of a massive corporation.
• Water use and environmental impact: Many data centers require significant water
for cooling and generate substantial heat and noise. This raises concerns about long-term
impacts on local water resources, environmental quality, and the overall character of
Monticello.
• Limited community benefit: There has been no compelling evidence that these
facilities would provide substantial, long-term local jobs or meaningful tax benefits
when compared to the scale of infrastructure and energy demands they create.
• Quality of life and property values: Noise from cooling equipment, increased
electrical infrastructure, possible substation expansion, and truck traffic threaten nearby
neighborhoods, property values, and the small-town atmosphere that residents value.
Given these concerns, I ask you to:
1. Reject data centers as a permitted or conditional use in our community, or
2. At minimum, adopt very strict regulations and limits that heavily restrict where and
how they can be built, while prioritizing the health, safety, and financial interests of
residents over outside corporate interests.
Please treat this email as my formal statement of opposition regarding data center
development in Monticello. I respectfully request that my comments be added to the
public record for the relevant hearings and discussions.
Thank you for taking the concerns of working residents seriously, including those of us
who understand the technical implications these facilities would bring to Monticello’s
infrastructure.
From:Brooke Blomker
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Opposition to Proposed Data Center in Monticello
Date:Friday, December 5, 2025 1:11:16 AM
Dear Ms. Schumann,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed data center development in
Monticello. While I understand the desire to attract new investment and technological
infrastructure to our community, the significant environmental, economic, and quality-of-life
concerns associated with this project outweigh the potential benefits.
Environmental Impact:
Large-scale data centers require enormous amounts of electricity and water for continuous
operation and cooling. This will cause an enormous amount of stress on Monticello’s local
resources—especially our groundwater and energy infrastructure. Increased energy demand
risks higher utility costs for residents, while heavy water usage poses potential threats to local
ecosystems and future water security, as well as the potential to create "localized heat islands"
affecting local animals and plants.
Noise, Heat, and Air Quality:
Data centers often rely on industrial-scale cooling systems that produce continuous noise and
expel waste heat. This can disrupt nearby neighborhoods, reduce property values, and
contribute to localized environmental degradation. Monticello residents deserve thoughtful
development that enhances livability, not industrial noise and thermal pollution.
Economic Considerations:
Despite promises of economic development, most modern data centers create very few
permanent jobs relative to their resource demands. Much of the economic benefit flows to out-
of-state corporations, while the local community assumes the burden of infrastructure costs,
environmental risks, and land-use trade-offs. Monticello should prioritize projects that provide
sustainable economic opportunities with meaningful long-term employment.
Land Use and Community Character:
Monticello’s growth should reflect our community values—balancing development with
environmental stewardship, residential wellbeing, and long-term planning. A high-impact
industrial data facility is incompatible with the vision many residents share for Monticello’s
future. We have the opportunity to encourage growth that aligns with our identity rather than
compromise it.
For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Community Development Department, the Planning
Commission, and the City Council to reject the data center proposal and pursue development
options that better serve Monticello’s residents, environment, and long-term prosperity.
Thank you for your attention and for your continued service to our community. I appreciate
your thoughtful consideration of these concerns.
Sincerely,
Brooke Blomker
From:Shannon Bye
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Fwd: Monticello Industrial Development - Draft AUAR
Date:Saturday, December 6, 2025 6:38:29 PM
Attachments:image001.png
----------
The auar introduces two development scenarios but provides no rationale for why these
scenarios bracket the realistic range of impacts.
Scoping requires explaining why alternatives are reasonable, not just describing them.
Your document frequently states that mitigation “will be identified,” but does not outline:
decision criteria for selecting mitigation, responsible parties, performance standards, or
monitoring commitments.
This really weakens its usefulness for determining the scope and depth of analysis, but is that
what you are after? Honestly after last night's 4 hours( I will never get back) I don't know why
I bother. We do this song and dance with everything, and in the end you shove it through.
Same song and dance with Havenridge, despite the efforts of the Army Corps of engineers
recommendations, the supervision of recommendations was not even minimal in the end.
In this instance I am inclined to believe it isn't really about the data farm but opening up a
chunk of twnshp for light industrial use, since the planning scope of other previous plans
wasn't adept enough to realize commercial would tank, and allowing commercial IN the
existing industrial area (fleet farm??)
At any rate here are some expectations to improve your document, not my first rodeo and I
suspect even if you make the changes it will be like usual in that follow up is minimal
regardless of the data collected
Insufficient evaluation of cumulative potential effects
Scenario-based cumulative impacts are not described.
The AUAR must outline how cumulative effects will be assessed relative to:
other planned annexations,
regional industrial growth,
utility system expansions,
transportation improvements,
climate change.
The document only states that cumulative impacts “will be discussed.” The current description
does not identify the full range of realistic development intensities, nor does it justify why the
two selected scenarios represent the outer bounds of potential environmental effects. Expand
on the rationale and the bounding analysis should be included.should include an analysis of
greenway corridor constraints and potential fragmentation effects based on the City’s
adopted Natural Resource Inventory & Assessment.
This scoping phase should identify whether protocol-level surveys, avoidance zones, or
seasonal construction constraints will be required for Blanding's Turtle as noted. Don't see
that coming, hasn't been given much credence for other sites. Yout document does not
describe potential host habitats or whether field surveys are required for butterflies or other
pollinators.
The document describes plans but does not discuss potential plan amendments, conflicts, or
necessary updates to the Comprehensive Plan or Orderly Annexation Agreement. Scoping
must clarify whether Scenario 1's data‑center‑heavy model aligns with land‑use
allowances.
Climate adaptation section commits to addressing climate trends but contains no actual
climate baseline, projections, vulnerability assessment, or preliminary findings. Hows about
you include some actual climate projection baselines and anticipated future conditions to
scope the level of analysis required by the process you are participating in???. The current
language defers all meaningful analysis to the future without identifying methodology,
models, datasets, or thresholds for evaluating climate‑related risk.This undermines the
ability to scope climate-related analysis meaningfully.
The scoping document appears to leave out baseline estimates for criteria pollutants, GHG
emissions, noise contours, and traffic volumes for each scenario. These baselines are
necessary to determine the depth of study required. Furthermore provides no identification
of foreseeable projects, utility expansions, regional development, or transportation
improvements that must be included. Scoping must define the cumulative analysis
boundary.
Stormwater analysis is not yet defined
AUAR guidance requires a detailed stormwater approach, including:
conceptual pond locations,
estimated impervious surface totals,
infiltration feasibility,
rate/volume control strategy,
climate-change-adjusted hydrologic assumptions.
Instead, the document promises these will be “discussed,” offering no specifics.
Wetland analysis is incomplete
While wetlands are mapped, the document does not include:
impact estimates for either scenario,
preliminary avoidance/minimization strategy,
identification of likely mitigation pathways,
whether buffers can be met,
potential hydrologic changes.
does not include an overlay analysis of potential fragmentation, habitat loss, or
hydrologic alteration under either development scenario it also lacks an initial estimate
of total inches removed and expected replacement obligations, THAT is needed to
understand scale of impacts. There is no preliminary assessment of cut/fill needs, soil
export/import, mass grading extents, or erosion‑prone areas. Scenario‑level earthwork
analysis is required to properly scope stormwater and erosion evaluations.
does not provide preliminary estimates of permanent or temporary wetland impacts for
either scenario, nor does it evaluate hydrologic connectivity or down‑gradient effects
to Pelican Lake.
this lacks baseline groundwater level data, anticipated drawdown under each scenario,
or triggers for a water appropriations permit.
no scenario‑level wastewater generation estimates are provided & this will be
preventing scoping of system impacts. The document must include preliminary
flow ranges based on land use intensities.
This is a core requirement for AUAR scoping....The document mentions that water and
wastewater needs “will be evaluated,” but provides no preliminary capacity screening,
including but not limited to:
existing system deficits,
constraints of trunk sewer expansion,
potential need for new wells,
substation/transmission implications for Scenario 1.
Scoping must identify potential constraints, not just promise later evaluation.
Insufficient evaluation of cumulative potential effects: Scenario-based cumulative
impacts are not described. The AUAR must outline how cumulative effects will be assessed relative to:
other planned annexations,
regional industrial growth,
utility system expansions,
transportation improvements,
climate change.
The document only states that cumulative impacts “will be discussed.”
Insufficient evaluation of cumulative potential effects
Scenario-based cumulative impacts are not described.
The AUAR must outline how cumulative effects will be assessed relative to:
other planned annexations,
regional industrial growth,
utility system expansions,
transportation improvements,
climate change.
The document only states that cumulative impacts “will be discussed.”
I would expect that you need to identify scenario-specific triggers, thresholds for additional
environmental review (e.g., fuel storage, wastewater flows), or anticipated timing of permit
submittals. Scoping should identify which permits materially influence the AUAR
analysis, furthermore it lacks an initial compatibility screening, including noise, visual,
traffic, stormwater, and utility conflicts with the planned single‑family area east of
Edmonson Avenue.
On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 10:57 AM Angela Schumann
<Angela.Schumann@monticellomn.gov> wrote:
On behalf of the City of Monticello, please find below a link to the Draft AUAR and
Mitigation Plan for the Monticello Industrial Development study area. The City of
Monticello approved the Draft AUAR and Mitigation Plan for distribution at the November
10, 2025, City Council Meeting.
Environmental Reviews | Monticello, MN
The AUAR process provides local governments with the opportunity to evaluate how
different land uses may impact the community's environment, providing environmental
analysis before major development occurs and helping inform future land use decisions. An
AUAR is not a project approval document; it provides information useful to planning for the
management and mitigation of impacts.
The Monticello Industrial AUAR evaluates two development land use scenarios, a light
industrial park land use scenario as outlined in the Monticello 2040 Comprehensive Plan and
a technology campus (data center) land use scenario. This AUAR study area encompasses
approximately 550 acres on 16 parcels in Monticello Township, Minnesota. The study area
is comprised of land generally located south of 85th St NE, west of Edmonson Ave NE, and
east of Davidson Ave NE, within the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area.
The public is invited to review and provide comment on the Draft AUAR and mitigation
plan. You are receiving this email because you have previously provided comments on the
Monticello Industrial AUAR Scoping Document.
The 30-day comment period began on November 18, 2025. Comments will be accepted
through 4:00 PM on December 18, 2025, and should be addressed to:
angela.schumann@monticellomn.gov.
An Open House on Thursday, November 20, 2025 is also scheduled as an opportunity for
additional public information and feedback on the Monticello Industrial AUAR. The Open
House will be held from 6-8 PM at the Monticello Community Center.
Angela Schumann
Community Development Director
Development Services
763-271-3224
505 Walnut St, Suite 1, Monticello, MN 55362
MonticelloMN.gov | Facebook | Subscribe to E-News
Email correspondence to and from the City of Monticello government offices is subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices
Act and may be disclosed to third parties.
From:Joe Kraft
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Public Comment on the Monticello Draft AUAR
Date:Wednesday, December 10, 2025 1:32:00 PM
Hello,
I am submitting this comment because after reviewing the Draft AUAR, it’s clear that the
document does not go far enough in protecting residents, groundwater, wetlands, wildlife, or
the character of the surrounding neighborhoods. The AUAR reads more like a framework to
make development easier than a document that seriously evaluates worst-case impacts or holds
future projects to a high standard.
The area covered by this AUAR includes sensitive wetlands, wells, groundwater protection
zones, and wildlife habitat. It also sits near existing neighborhoods that will be directly
affected by noise, lighting, traffic, and industrial activity. Given the scale of the two scenarios
—up to 3 million square feet of “technology campus” buildings or up to 5 million square feet
of industrial development—the protections outlined in the AUAR are not nearly strong enough
or detailed enough to ensure long-term environmental safety and quality of life.
Major Concerns:
1. Groundwater and Aquifer Protection
The AUAR acknowledges that part of the site lies within a Drinking Water Supply
Management Area but still allows high-risk options like rapid infiltration basins and
large-volume water use without requiring rigorous hydrogeological testing before
approval. A “study later” approach is not acceptable in an area tied directly to
community drinking water.
2. Wetland Impacts
The document allows for wetland impacts under both scenarios with vague promises of
“replacement through banking credits.” Replacing wetlands on paper does not protect
the local ecosystem or stormwater function of the site. Local wetland preservation
should be the default expectation, not an optional mitigation tactic.
3. Traffic and Roadway Stress
The AUAR’s traffic analysis is too general and does not realistically address truck
volumes, noise, congestion, or safety risks—especially under the industrial scenario.
Residents should not be left to deal with the consequences of heavy industrial traffic
because the initial environmental review used optimistic estimates.
4. Noise and Air Impacts
The AUAR repeatedly delays noise and air-quality studies until individual projects are
proposed. This undermines the purpose of an AUAR, which is supposed to evaluate
cumulative, worst-case impacts. Backup generators, cooling systems, and heavy
equipment could have major long-term effects on surrounding homes, yet the AUAR
provides no enforceable limits.
5. Weak Enforcement Language
Much of the mitigation plan uses soft language like “should,” “may,” or “is expected
to.” None of these guarantee that impacts will actually be prevented. Developers could
technically meet the AUAR requirements while still creating substantial harm.
Stronger Measures That Should Be Added Before Approval:
1. Mandatory full hydrogeological impact assessment before any approval
No project should move forward without clear evidence that groundwater, private wells,
and the City’s aquifer will not be harmed.
2. No use of infiltration basins for industrial or data-center wastewater
This practice introduces unnecessary risk in a DWSMA zone. Wastewater must be
treated and sent through the municipal system only.
3. Zero net loss of local wetlands
All wetlands on the site should be protected in place. Banking credits should not
substitute for local environmental functions.
4. Binding noise limits and generator-testing restrictions
The AUAR should establish strict noise thresholds, limits on hours of operation, and
requirements for noise-reducing design features before any project is allowed.
5. Comprehensive traffic impact plan with enforceable truck routes
Heavy truck traffic should be restricted from residential roads, and a full traffic impact
study should be required before any project approval—not after.
6. A stronger greenway and wildlife-protection requirement
The AUAR should guarantee continuous habitat corridors, larger buffers around
wetlands, and mandatory wildlife-friendly design.
7. Independent environmental monitoring paid for by developers
Annual third-party audits should be required to ensure developers follow stormwater,
groundwater, noise, and air-quality commitments.
8. Shorter AUAR validity period
The AUAR should expire sooner than typical to prevent outdated assumptions from
allowing harmful future projects.
In summary, this AUAR does not go far enough to protect Monticello residents or the
environment. The scale of development being considered demands stronger, clearer, and
enforceable mitigation measures. Without these changes, the AUAR creates more risk than
reassurance. I urge the city to adopt stricter requirements before finalizing this document.
From:Allie VanVleet
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Data Center AUAR
Date:Wednesday, December 10, 2025 8:55:40 PM
City of Monticello,
We have been residents of Monticello for over 5 years and have had many concerns with the
direction the city has been taking over the last few years. We are in strong opposition to the
proposed data center. I am sure you already know the numerous negative outcomes that these
types of facilities have on the surrounding community, but the following are a few of the
reasons we do not want to see this become a reality in our city.
Data centers negatively impact communities through severe noise pollution, increased air and
water pollution, strained energy grids leading to higher utility costs, and high water
consumption, potential health issues, decreased property values, and minimal local job
creation, creating significant environmental and social burdens. These large facilities consume
excessive amounts of resources and are not worth the related risks.
The environmental impacts include:
Water Strain: Data centers use millions of gallons of water daily for cooling, straining
local supplies in water-scarce regions.
Energy Demand: They are massive energy consumers, putting pressure on power grids,
sometimes leading to reliance on fossil fuels, increased emissions,
and higher energy bills for residents.
Air Pollution: Backup diesel generators can cause spikes in harmful air pollutants,
impacting public health.
Community and health impacts include:
Noise Pollution: Constant humming from cooling systems and generators causes sleep
disruption, headaches, and stress for nearby residents.
Health Concerns: Chronic noise and poor air quality can lead to hypertension,
cardiovascular risks, and provoke lung problems.
Property Values: property value of the surrounding area is driven down.
Economic impacts include:
Utility Costs: Data centers can drive up electricity rates for all consumers.
Job Disparity: While they consume resources, they create few local, high-paying jobs
compared to their scale.
Land Use: They displace other potential developments, such as housing, and can strain
local infrastructure.
We ask that the city council listen to the people who are raising a family here and call this city
their home rather than lining pockets with money that this type of facility claims to offer. We
have heard nothing but opposition for this facility from those in our community and ask that
this data center is denied entrance to ruining our home.
Thank you,
Steven and Allie VanVleet
From:Gwen&Wayne Johnson
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Auar
Date:Thursday, December 11, 2025 10:56:15 AM
Hello Angela, I have read through the auar. Although the document seems pretty thorough for
the most part. The one thing I don’t see addressed is amount of chemical being used on the
land now that may be eliminated with the change in land use.
I would be referring to farm herbicides, pesticides and chemical fertilizers.
As you are aware intensive farming practices require considerable amounts of all of these
products on a regular basis.
The current farmer running a large portion of this land is a very efficient operator. He
sometimes double crops areas of the farm which requires double applications of all of the
above chemicals. He also grows specialty crops which generally require higher amounts of
insecticides.
Although many of the current farm chemicals are not considered pfas, a few are. Some of the
main chemicals such as glyphosphates are not considered pfas, although it has been proven
they remain molecularly intact long enough to create health concerns.
Being that there are currently thousands of pounds of various chemicals currently being
distributed on this parcel that would be mostly eliminated in the auar scenarios. It seems this
would have very realistic effect on the surrounding community and the environment.
I imagine that the amount of chemicals the operator uses on this parcel may not be required to
be of public record.
Thank you,
Wayne Johnson
From:Erin Jones
To:Angela Schumann
Cc:Lloyd Hilgart; charlotte.gabler@minticellomn.gov; Tracy Hinz; Lee Martie; Kip Christianson
Subject:AUAR Public Comment - Strong Opposition to Proposed Monticello Data Center
Date:Thursday, December 11, 2025 11:11:36 AM
To the Monticello Planning Commission and Review Committee,
My name is Erin Jones, a resident of Monticello, and I am writing during the AUAR public
review period to express my strong opposition to the proposed data center in our
community. After reviewing the project materials and the broader impacts data centers
have shown in other communities, I urge the Commission to deny approval (or at
minimum place a moratorium on permitting) until binding community protections are
required.
Below I summarize the primary reasons for my concern and request that the AUAR and
any approvals meaningfully address each item.
1. Excessive water use threatens local water supply and ecosystems.
Large data centers often consume millions of gallons of freshwater daily for
cooling. Recent analyses and reporting show some facilities using on the order of
millions of gallons per day (and industry-wide consumption measured in billions of
gallons annually), which can stress municipal and groundwater supplies—
especially in smaller towns. The AUAR should disclose concrete, verifiable daily
and annual water withdrawal and consumptive-use estimates for this project and
require limits and independent monitoring.
2. Backup generators and on-site fuel storage create local air-quality and health
risks.
Data centers commonly rely on diesel backup generators that emit nitrogen
oxides, particulate matter, and other harmful pollutants when tested and
exercised. Communities near large generator arrays have reported worsened air
quality and associated health impacts. The AUAR must quantify expected
generator usage (testing and runtime), model local air-pollutant concentrations,
and prohibit continuous or frequent use of diesel generators or large on-site diesel
storage unless strict mitigation and permitting are required.
3. High electricity demand strains the grid and can raise local utility costs.
Modern data centers are among the largest electricity consumers in many regions.
Rapid data-center growth has been linked to large grid upgrades and proposals to
pass through infrastructure and reliability costs to ratepayers—resulting in higher
electricity bills for residents and small businesses. The AUAR must analyze
cumulative load (including future expansion), who will pay for transmission and
distribution upgrades, and whether the project will exacerbate rate pressure on
Monticello households.
4. E-waste and hardware lifecycle concerns are real and under-addressed.
Server equipment and accelerators (GPUs, ASICs) have relatively rapid refresh
cycles in AI and high-performance computing environments. Without enforceable
decommissioning and certified e-waste management plans, the community can
be left with hazardous electronic waste and lost recovery opportunities. I ask the
Commission to require a binding asset-disposition plan aligned with certified IT
asset-disposition (ITAD) standards and financial assurances for responsible end-
of-life handling.
5. Noise, light, and industrialization change quality of life.
Large-scale cooling systems, HVAC fans, and transform/verter stations generate
continuous low-frequency noise and lighting that can travel beyond site
boundaries, altering residential neighborhoods and property values. The AUAR
should include real-world modeled noise contours for worst-case operating and
test conditions and enforceable nighttime limits and setbacks.
6. Broader public concern — national calls for a pause on new facilities.
This is not just a local issue. Over 200 environmental organizations recently sent a
letter urging Congress to halt approvals of new U.S. data centers until stronger
safeguards are in place, citing excessive energy and water demand and
community harms. That collective action underscores that many civil-society
groups see the industry’s current pace of expansion as incompatible with climate
and community resilience goals. Monticello should proceed cautiously in light of
this national scrutiny.
Monticello deserves development that strengthens our local economy without
jeopardizing public health, water resources, or ratepayer welfare. If the project
proponents cannot demonstrate that the data center will avoid or fully mitigate the
harms described above, I respectfully request that the Planning Commission deny site
approval (or at minimum place a moratorium until federal and state policy clarifies
protections and community safeguards). Additionally, I would request any Council
member receiving campaign contributions from AI related interests remove themselves
from this project due to conflicts of interest.
Thank you for your consideration of my concerns during this public review.
Sincerely,
Erin Jones
Monticello Resident
From:Krystal Fair
Subject:Public Comment on the Draft Monticello Industrial AUAR
Date:Friday, December 12, 2025 9:13:50 AM
Importance:High
To the Mayor, City Council, Planning Commission
I am submitting this public comment to formally express my opposition to the Draft
Monticello Industrial AUAR as it relates to Scenario 1, which explicitly evaluates a large-
scale data center / technology campus within the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area.
While the AUAR is described as a “planning tool,” its adoption carries lasting
consequences that materially shape future development approvals. Based on the
City’s own document, the risks, uncertainties, and long-term burdens of this
proposal outweigh any speculative benefits.
1. The AUAR Pre-Approves a Massive Worst-Case Development
The AUAR evaluates a “worst-case” development scenario of up to 3,000,000 square
feet of technology or data center uses across 550 acres (pp. 7–8).
“The intent of the AUAR is to recognize the worst-case potential impacts and identify
mitigation measures that may be taken to compensate for those impacts.” (p. 7)
This is not theoretical. Once adopted, this AUAR becomes the environmental ceiling
for future projects, allowing subsequent approvals to rely on this document without
re-opening full environmental review. Community opposition at later stages
becomes functionally limited.
2. Data Centers Are Acknowledged as a Unique and High-Burden Use
The City’s own 2040 Comprehensive Plan language, quoted directly in the AUAR,
acknowledges that data centers are fundamentally different from other industrial uses:
“The City’s 2040 Plan recognizes data centers as a singularly unique land use due to size
and scope.” (p. 25)
“Data center uses shall demonstrate convincingly that its burden on municipal services,
infrastructure, or fiscal condition is completely mitigated…” (p. 26)
The AUAR does not demonstrate this convincingly. Instead, it defers critical
determinations to future permits, future studies, and future mitigation AFTER the
AUAR is adopted.
3. Water Demand Is Significant and Uncapped
“Scenario 1 would require significantly lower operational traffic and potentially higher
water/wastewater demands compared to Scenario 2.” (p. 12)
Scenario 1 anticipates heavy groundwater use; Potential Rapid Infiltration Basin (RIB)
systems; Future water appropriation permit amendments (p. 21–22)
Yet these permits are not secured, and the long-term sustainability of groundwater
withdrawal is modeled - not guaranteed.
The AUAR itself acknowledges increasing climate stress:
“There is a projected 2.6% to 13.8% increase in 100-year storm intensity by 2035 and a
projected 5.2% to 26.9% increase by 2060.” (p. 12)
Approving a water-intensive land use under these conditions is fiscally and
environmentally irresponsible.
4. Permanent Loss of Farmland of Statewide Importance
“77 percent of the study area is considered farmland of statewide importance.” (p. 23)
“Cropland: 444 acres existing → 0 acres proposed.” (Table 3, p. 18)
This loss is irreversible. No meaningful farmland preservation strategy is included,
only replacement landscaping and engineered stormwater features.
5. Wetlands and Natural Systems Are Reduced
The AUAR documents a reduction in wetlands under Scenario 1 and relies heavily on
mitigation and engineered infrastructure:
“…preservation of wetlands or woodlands as required by ordinance and/or to the extent
practical.” (pp. 17–18)
“Mitigation” is not the same as protection, especially as precipitation intensity
increases and systems fail under real-world conditions.
6. Infrastructure Burdens Are Shifted Forward – Likely to TAXPAYERS
The AUAR anticipates new trunk water and sewer lines, electrical substations, and
roadway improvements (pp. 11–12), without binding financial assurances protecting
taxpayers.
7. Annexation Removes Local Control PERMANENTLY
The AUAR confirms: “The study area is outside the city of Monticello and would require
the city to annex land from the Township.” (pp. 30–31)
Once annexed, township residents permanently lose land-use authority, despite bearing
many of the long-term impacts.
8. Few Permanent Jobs, Poor Land-Use Efficiency
While not quantified in the AUAR, data centers are widely known to generate very few
permanent jobs relative to land consumed. The AUAR offers no job minimums, local
hiring requirements, or wage standards.
This stands in contrast to other light industrial uses contemplated in Scenario 2.
Conclusion
For these significant reasons, I urge the City of Monticello to REJECT this project that
would alter the identity of our community forever.
My only question to you is - why are you trying to destroy this city? Bringing these data
centers to our community would have dire consequences, and that would be on you.
Respectfully submitted,
Krystal Fair
Monticello Resident
12/12/2025
From:Lysa Holmstrom
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Data centers
Date:Friday, December 12, 2025 5:16:26 PM
I have to start with saying I'm disappointed in our city leaders that this agenda seems to be
pushed regardless of how the community is responding.
This is not the everyday business. These are usually a lights out facility named by a security
guard. They don't bring jobs. They don't add value to our community. They add to our existing
problems with tainted water from the nuclear plant.
I live not even a mile from the larger location. I moved here to have a quieter life, I like most
other people in Monticello would like to see that continue without a significant nose generated
bya data center. There is no way to reduce the impacts to our citizens for our water, noise or
electricity consumption.
These companies do not care about our community, I hope our city council does and prohibits
all data center buildings in and around Monticello!
Lysa Holmstrom, home owner in Monticello
From:Laura Pelant
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Opposition to Draft Industrial AUAR
Date:Friday, December 12, 2025 2:24:48 PM
To the Mayor, City Council, Planning Commission, and Staff,
I am submitting this public comment to formally express my opposition to the Draft
Monticello Industrial AUAR as it relates to Scenario 1, which explicitly evaluates a
large-scale data center / technology campus within the Monticello Orderly
Annexation Area.
While the AUAR is described as a “planning tool,” its adoption carries lasting
consequences that will materially shape future development approvals. This
decision does not exist in a vacuum—it affects nearby neighborhoods, children who
use local parks and trails, families who rely on clean water, and the long-term
character of the Monticello community, including access to natural assets such as
the Bertram Chain of Lakes.
Based on the City’s own document, the risks, uncertainties, and long-term burdens
of this proposal outweigh any speculative benefits.
1. The AUAR Pre-Approves a Massive Worst-Case Development
The AUAR evaluates a “worst-case” development scenario of up to 3,000,000
square feet of technology or data center uses across 550 acres (pp. 7–8).
“The intent of the AUAR is to recognize the worst-case potential impacts and
identify mitigation measures that may be taken to compensate for those impacts.”
(p. 7)
This is not theoretical. Once adopted, this AUAR becomes the environmental
ceiling for future projects, allowing subsequent approvals to rely on this document
without re-opening full environmental review. Future public input—especially from
families living nearby—becomes functionally limited after this point.
2. Data Centers Are Acknowledged as a Unique and High-Burden Use
The City’s own 2040 Comprehensive Plan language, quoted directly in the AUAR,
acknowledges that data centers are fundamentally different from other industrial
uses:
“The City’s 2040 Plan recognizes data centers as a singularly unique land use due to
size and scope.” (p. 25)
“Data center uses shall demonstrate convincingly that its burden on municipal
services, infrastructure, or fiscal condition is completely mitigated…” (p. 26)
The AUAR does not demonstrate this convincingly. Instead, it defers critical
determinations to future permits, future studies, and future mitigation after the
AUAR is adopted—placing the burden of risk on the surrounding community rather
than on the applicant.
3. Water Demand Is Significant and Uncapped
“Scenario 1 would require significantly lower operational traffic and potentially
higher water/wastewater demands compared to Scenario 2.” (p. 12)
Scenario 1 anticipates:
Heavy groundwater use
Potential Rapid Infiltration Basin (RIB) systems
Future water appropriation permit amendments (pp. 21–22)
These permits are not secured, and the long-term sustainability of groundwater
withdrawal is modeled—not guaranteed. This matters deeply for families, schools,
and children who depend on reliable, clean water now and into the future, as well as
for the community who enjoy access to Bertram Park.
The AUAR itself acknowledges increasing climate stress:
“There is a projected 2.6% to 13.8% increase in 100-year storm intensity by 2035
and a projected 5.2% to 26.9% increase by 2060.” (p. 12)
Approving a water-intensive land use under these conditions is fiscally and
environmentally irresponsible, especially when safer, less extractive land uses exist.
4. Permanent Loss of Farmland of Statewide Importance
“77 percent of the study area is considered farmland of statewide importance.” (p.
23)
“Cropland: 444 acres existing → 0 acres proposed.” (Table 3, p. 18)
This loss is irreversible. Productive farmland near residential areas and community
amenities is replaced with an industrial use that provides little direct benefit to local
families. No meaningful farmland preservation strategy is included—only
replacement landscaping and engineered stormwater features that do not replicate
food production, ecological value, or rural character.
5. Wetlands and Natural Systems Are Reduced
The AUAR documents a reduction in wetlands under Scenario 1 and relies heavily
on mitigation and engineered infrastructure:
“…preservation of wetlands or woodlands as required by ordinance and/or to the
extent practical.” (pp. 17–18)
“Mitigation” is not the same as protection—particularly as precipitation intensity
increases and systems fail under real-world conditions. Natural systems near parks,
trails, and lakes provide flood protection, water filtration, and outdoor spaces for
children; once degraded, these benefits are not easily restored.
6. Infrastructure Burdens Are Shifted Forward – Likely to Taxpayers
The AUAR anticipates new trunk water and sewer lines, electrical substations, and
roadway improvements (pp. 11–12), without binding financial assurances protecting
current and future taxpayers.
Families living nearby should not be asked to absorb long-term infrastructure risk
for a development that offers limited local return.
7. Annexation Removes Local Control Permanently
The AUAR confirms:
“The study area is outside the city of Monticello and would require the city to annex
land from the Township.” (pp. 30–31)
Once annexed, township residents permanently lose land-use authority—despite
bearing many of the long-term impacts related to water use, traffic patterns, noise,
visual scale, and environmental risk. This is a one-way decision.
8. Few Permanent Jobs, Poor Land-Use Efficiency
While not quantified in the AUAR, data centers are widely known to generate very
few permanent jobs relative to land consumed. The AUAR offers no job minimums,
no local hiring requirements, and no wage standards—providing little assurance that
this project meaningfully supports Monticello families.
This stands in contrast to other light industrial uses contemplated in Scenario 2,
which offer greater flexibility, economic diversity, and community benefit.
Conclusion
For these reasons—environmental, fiscal, and community-based—I urge the City of
Monticello to REJECT Scenario 1 of the Draft Industrial AUAR. Approving this
framework would commit the community to an irreversible path that prioritizes
speculative industrial development over children, neighborhoods, natural resources,
and long-term resilience.
This decision will shape Monticello for generations. It deserves caution, restraint,
and a clear commitment to protecting the people who already call this place home.
Thank you,
Laura Pelant
From:Ben Pupeza
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Data center
Date:Saturday, December 13, 2025 9:27:43 AM
I don’t want this in my back yard.
I don’t want endless construction and noise.
I don’t want my property value and quality of life to be diminished.
Set back should be 1 mile from a residence.
Make it not happen.
Ben and Kasey Pupeza
From:Beth Heck
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Data Center
Date:Sunday, December 14, 2025 3:51:14 PM
Angela,
My name is Beth Heck, I live on in Monticello.
I am against the Data Center anywhere close to Monticello. I don’t want the environmental impact that it will have.
From:Rita Howell
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:No Data Centers IN Monticello Mn. 55362!
Date:Monday, December 15, 2025 1:23:20 PM
Im Seriously Against This we Live Close to where these will be !!!
Close to Schools Seriously this is what this Community is going too???? We have lived in this Community for 30
year!! And all of you want to
destroy what we have built this is Disgraceful to this whole Community . We live on
we retired to this Community and you are all ruining !!! Think of all of our Kids and Grandchildren
Please!! Do Mot do this you will not have any housing developments left if this is pushed thru!!! Very disappointed
resident!!’
Sent from my iPhone
From:Steph Mueller
To:Lloyd Hilgart; Angela Schumann; Charlotte Gabler; Tracy Hinz; Lee Martie; Kip Christianson
Subject:Concern Regarding Proposed Data Centers
Date:Monday, December 15, 2025 7:55:31 PM
To the Mayor, City Council, Planning Commission, and Staff,
I am a nearby homeowner and parent. We moved here for a quiet, safe neighborhood for our children. The
proposed data center raises serious concerns about noise, traffic, light pollution, air quality, and long-term
health impacts, especially for children.
Our community deserves a safe and peaceful place to live. The proposed data center would change that for
everyone.
Thanks,
Stephanie Reichert
From:Shannon Bye
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Re: Monticello Industrial Development - Draft AUAR
Date:Tuesday, December 16, 2025 12:41:02 PM
Attachments:image001.png
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the City of Monticello’s November 2025 Draft
Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR). The AUAR provides a framework for
evaluating potential industrial development and generally fulfills the procedural purpose of an
AUAR. However, as currently drafted, the document relies too heavily on future site-level
review and does not sufficiently analyze or mitigate cumulative environmental impacts
associated with full industrial build-out.
The following comments are offered to strengthen the AUAR’s analytical rigor, environmental
protections, and long-term defensibility as it appears to be moving forward regardless of some
overwhelming public comments against these sorts of projects and their lack of long term data
for overall impact .
1. Development Scenarios and Alternatives
The development scenarios presented do not differ meaningfully in land use intensity,
impervious surface coverage, or environmental outcomes. As a result, the AUAR does not
provide a clear basis for comparing environmental impacts among alternatives.
A true reduced-impact or conservation-oriented alternative should be included. Such an
alternative should clearly demonstrate lower impervious surface coverage, expanded buffers
and open space, and reduced traffic and utility demand. Quantifiable differences among
scenarios are necessary to support informed decision-making.
2. Cumulative Impact Analysis
While cumulative impacts are acknowledged, the AUAR does not adequately quantify impacts
under full build-out conditions. Impacts are addressed resource-by-resource rather than
holistically, and the analysis assumes future mitigation without demonstrating system-wide
capacity.
The AUAR should include a comprehensive full build-out cumulative impacts summary
addressing impervious surfaces, traffic volumes (including heavy truck traffic), water and
wastewater demand, and stormwater discharge. Cumulative impacts should be evaluated
assuming concurrent or near-concurrent development, not sequential mitigation.
3. Transportation and Freight Impacts
The transportation analysis does not adequately reflect the operational characteristics of
industrial development. Heavy truck traffic appears understated, and peak freight movement
periods are not clearly analyzed.
The AUAR should include truck-specific operational analysis, identify mitigation thresholds
for key corridors and intersections, and clarify the timing and responsibility for transportation
improvements. Without this information, transportation impacts remain uncertain.
4. Stormwater, Wetlands, and Water Quality
Stormwater and wetland impacts are discussed at a conceptual level, relying on future
compliance with MS4 and NPDES requirements rather than quantitative modeling.
Stormwater modeling should be conducted for full build-out conditions and should evaluate
downstream and watershed-scale impacts, including increased precipitation intensity
associated with climate change. Avoidance and minimization strategies should be prioritized
over mitigation alone.
5. Groundwater and Drinking Water Protection
Groundwater impacts are insufficiently analyzed given the industrial nature of the planned
development. The AUAR provides limited discussion of aquifer sensitivity, recharge impacts,
and cumulative water withdrawals.
The AUAR should include groundwater vulnerability mapping, quantify projected water
demand for each scenario, and identify protective measures tailored to industrial land uses.
6. Land Use Compatibility and Buffers
The AUAR does not adequately address land use compatibility between industrial
development and adjacent agricultural or residential areas. Buffer standards are general and
lack spatial specificity, and noise and lighting impacts are not fully evaluated.
Minimum buffer widths and performance standards should be identified, and compatibility
impacts should be evaluated cumulatively rather than deferred to site-level review.
7. Utilities and Public Services
Utility and public service impacts are described broadly without identifying capacity
thresholds or phasing triggers. The AUAR assumes infrastructure expansion will occur
without clearly demonstrating feasibility or funding mechanisms.
The AUAR should identify capacity limits for water, wastewater, and emergency services and
clearly link infrastructure expansion to development intensity and timing.
8. Mitigation Measures and Enforceability
Many mitigation measures in the AUAR are advisory rather than binding, using non-
mandatory language and lacking implementation mechanisms.
Key mitigation measures should be converted into enforceable commitments and clearly
incorporated into zoning standards, development agreements, or conditional use approvals.
Monitoring and reporting requirements should also be included.
Conclusion
While the November 2025 Draft AUAR satisfies basic procedural requirements, it does not yet
provide a sufficiently robust analysis of the cumulative environmental impacts associated with
full industrial build-out in Monticello. Strengthening the alternatives analysis, quantifying
cumulative impacts, and formalizing mitigation measures would significantly improve the
AUAR’s usefulness, transparency, and legal defensibility.
Thank you for considering these comments. I appreciate the City’s efforts to plan for growth
while addressing environmental impacts and encourage continued refinement of the AUAR
prior to adoption.
Sincerely,
On Mon, Dec 8, 2025 at 8:16 AM Angela Schumann
<Angela.Schumann@monticellomn.gov> wrote:
Shannon,
Good morning. After reviewing your comments, I am wondering whether your review was
based on the prior Scoping Document and not on the AUAR itself?
Please see link below to the full AUAR. It is on the same webpage as the Scoping
Document, but further down on the page.
Monticello Industrial Draft AUAR
The Scoping Document was previously accepted by the City Council.
Please don’t hesitate to call me to discuss.
Angela Schumann
Community Development Director
Development Services
763-271-3224
505 Walnut St, Suite 1, Monticello, MN 55362
MonticelloMN.gov | Facebook | Subscribe to E-News
Email correspondence to and from the City of Monticello government offices is subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices
Act and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Shannon Bye
Sent: Saturday, December 6, 2025 6:38 PM
To: Angela Schumann <Angela.Schumann@MonticelloMN.gov>
Subject: Fwd: Monticello Industrial Development - Draft AUAR
----------
The auar introduces two development scenarios but provides no rationale for why these
scenarios bracket the realistic range of impacts.
Scoping requires explaining why alternatives are reasonable, not just describing them.
Your document frequently states that mitigation “will be identified,” but does not outline:
decision criteria for selecting mitigation, responsible parties, performance standards,
or monitoring commitments.
This really weakens its usefulness for determining the scope and depth of analysis, but is
that what you are after? Honestly after last night's 4 hours( I will never get back) I don't
know why I bother. We do this song and dance with everything, and in the end you shove it
through. Same song and dance with Havenridge, despite the efforts of the Army Corps of
engineers recommendations, the supervision of recommendations was not even minimal in
the end.
In this instance I am inclined to believe it isn't really about the data farm but opening up a
chunk of twnshp for light industrial use, since the planning scope of other previous plans
wasn't adept enough to realize commercial would tank, and allowing commercial IN the
existing industrial area (fleet farm??)
At any rate here are some expectations to improve your document, not my first rodeo and
I suspect even if you make the changes it will be like usual in that follow up is minimal
regardless of the data collected
Insufficient evaluation of cumulative potential effects
Scenario-based cumulative impacts are not described.
The AUAR must outline how cumulative effects will be assessed relative to:
other planned annexations,
regional industrial growth,
utility system expansions,
transportation improvements,
climate change.
The document only states that cumulative impacts “will be discussed.” The current
description does not identify the full range of realistic development intensities, nor does it
justify why the two selected scenarios represent the outer bounds of potential environmental
effects. Expand on the rationale and the bounding analysis should be included.should
include an analysis of greenway corridor constraints and potential fragmentation
effects based on the City’s adopted Natural Resource Inventory & Assessment.
This scoping phase should identify whether protocol-level surveys, avoidance zones, or
seasonal construction constraints will be required for Blanding's Turtle as noted. Don't see
that coming, hasn't been given much credence for other sites. Yout document does not
describe potential host habitats or whether field surveys are required for butterflies or other
pollinators.
The document describes plans but does not discuss potential plan amendments, conflicts, or
necessary updates to the Comprehensive Plan or Orderly Annexation Agreement. Scoping
must clarify whether Scenario 1's data‑center‑heavy model aligns with land‑use
allowances.
Climate adaptation section commits to addressing climate trends but contains no actual
climate baseline, projections, vulnerability assessment, or preliminary findings. Hows
about you include some actual climate projection baselines and anticipated future conditions
to scope the level of analysis required by the process you are participating in???. The current
language defers all meaningful analysis to the future without identifying methodology,
models, datasets, or thresholds for evaluating climate‑related risk.This undermines the
ability to scope climate-related analysis meaningfully.
The scoping document appears to leave out baseline estimates for criteria pollutants, GHG
emissions, noise contours, and traffic volumes for each scenario. These baselines are
necessary to determine the depth of study required. Furthermore provides no identification
of foreseeable projects, utility expansions, regional development, or transportation
improvements that must be included. Scoping must define the cumulative analysis
boundary.
Stormwater analysis is not yet defined
AUAR guidance requires a detailed stormwater approach, including:
conceptual pond locations,
estimated impervious surface totals,
infiltration feasibility,
rate/volume control strategy,
climate-change-adjusted hydrologic assumptions.
Instead, the document promises these will be “discussed,” offering no specifics.
Wetland analysis is incomplete
While wetlands are mapped, the document does not include:
impact estimates for either scenario,
preliminary avoidance/minimization strategy,
identification of likely mitigation pathways,
whether buffers can be met,
potential hydrologic changes.
does not include an overlay analysis of potential fragmentation, habitat loss, or
hydrologic alteration under either development scenario it also lacks an initial
estimate of total inches removed and expected replacement obligations, THAT is
needed to understand scale of impacts. There is no preliminary assessment of cut/fill
needs, soil export/import, mass grading extents, or erosion‑prone areas.
Scenario‑level earthwork analysis is required to properly scope stormwater and
erosion evaluations.
does not provide preliminary estimates of permanent or temporary wetland impacts
for either scenario, nor does it evaluate hydrologic connectivity or down‑gradient
effects to Pelican Lake.
this lacks baseline groundwater level data, anticipated drawdown under each
scenario, or triggers for a water appropriations permit.
no scenario‑level wastewater generation estimates are provided & this will
be preventing scoping of system impacts. The document must include
preliminary flow ranges based on land use intensities.
This is a core requirement for AUAR scoping....The document mentions that water and
wastewater needs “will be evaluated,” but provides no preliminary capacity screening,
including but not limited to:
existing system deficits,
constraints of trunk sewer expansion,
potential need for new wells,
substation/transmission implications for Scenario 1.
Scoping must identify potential constraints, not just promise later evaluation.
Insufficient evaluation of cumulative potential effects: Scenario-based
cumulative impacts are not described. The AUAR must outline how cumulative effects
will be assessed relative to:
other planned annexations,
regional industrial growth,
utility system expansions,
transportation improvements,
climate change.
The document only states that cumulative impacts “will be discussed.”
Insufficient evaluation of cumulative potential effects
Scenario-based cumulative impacts are not described.
The AUAR must outline how cumulative effects will be assessed relative to:
other planned annexations,
regional industrial growth,
utility system expansions,
transportation improvements,
climate change.
The document only states that cumulative impacts “will be discussed.”
I would expect that you need to identify scenario-specific triggers, thresholds for additional
environmental review (e.g., fuel storage, wastewater flows), or anticipated timing of permit
submittals. Scoping should identify which permits materially influence the AUAR
analysis, furthermore it lacks an initial compatibility screening, including noise,
visual, traffic, stormwater, and utility conflicts with the planned single‑family area east
of Edmonson Avenue.
On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 10:57 AM Angela Schumann
<Angela.Schumann@monticellomn.gov> wrote:
On behalf of the City of Monticello, please find below a link to the Draft AUAR and
Mitigation Plan for the Monticello Industrial Development study area. The City of
Monticello approved the Draft AUAR and Mitigation Plan for distribution at the
November 10, 2025, City Council Meeting.
Environmental Reviews | Monticello, MN
The AUAR process provides local governments with the opportunity to evaluate how
different land uses may impact the community's environment, providing environmental
analysis before major development occurs and helping inform future land use decisions.
An AUAR is not a project approval document; it provides information useful to planning
for the management and mitigation of impacts.
The Monticello Industrial AUAR evaluates two development land use scenarios, a light
industrial park land use scenario as outlined in the Monticello 2040 Comprehensive Plan
and a technology campus (data center) land use scenario. This AUAR study area
encompasses approximately 550 acres on 16 parcels in Monticello Township, Minnesota.
The study area is comprised of land generally located south of 85th St NE, west of
Edmonson Ave NE, and east of Davidson Ave NE, within the Monticello Orderly
Annexation Area.
The public is invited to review and provide comment on the Draft AUAR and mitigation
plan. You are receiving this email because you have previously provided comments on the
Monticello Industrial AUAR Scoping Document.
The 30-day comment period began on November 18, 2025. Comments will be accepted
through 4:00 PM on December 18, 2025, and should be addressed to:
angela.schumann@monticellomn.gov.
An Open House on Thursday, November 20, 2025 is also scheduled as an opportunity for
additional public information and feedback on the Monticello Industrial AUAR. The
Open House will be held from 6-8 PM at the Monticello Community Center.
Angela Schumann
Community Development Director
Development Services
763-271-3224
505 Walnut St, Suite 1, Monticello, MN 55362
MonticelloMN.gov | Facebook | Subscribe to E-News
Email correspondence to and from the City of Monticello government offices is subject to the Minnesota Government Data
Practices Act and may be disclosed to third parties.
From:Cutsforth, Scott M
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:AUAR
Date:Tuesday, December 16, 2025 9:41:25 AM
Morning Angela,
Thank you all again for going through this document. Here are some of my
concerns/questions. Not sure if these are the right comments for the AUAR or not.
Water:
If water restrictions are put into place, due to drought, does the data center still get its
allotment?
If not, what does that mean for cooling? Do they pull more electric or have to run
the generators for the lack of water?
Monticello has plans to build over 500 homes on the south side over the next 5-10 years
(assumption on my part), new hotel, more restaurants, more apartments, etc., how
does that impact the current water appropriation? The slide last night made it look like
we would be right at that amount.
Noise:
How far away these noise evaluations conducted? i.e. ¼ mile, ½ mile, etc.
How long (minutes) are these tests conducted?
Are these tests conducted during all 4 seasons? Sound travel differently during
each season.
Are the tests conducted in a way assuming the full development of the site?
Fuel Spill:
Fuel spill is not a “if” as more of a when. Does the AUAR going into detail as to a design
to prevent fuel from getting into the ground water?
Best Regards,
Scott Cutsforth
This e-mail, including attachments, may include confidential and/or
proprietary information, and may be used only by the person or entity
to which it is addressed. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended
recipient or intended recipient’s authorized agent, the reader is hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is
prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the
sender by replying to this message and delete this e-mail immediately.
From:
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:NO to Data Center in Monticello
Date:Tuesday, December 16, 2025 9:03:19 AM
To All Whom It May Concern:
We need to add to the ordinance being written for Data Centers in Monticello,
MN: “Must Supply own power” to the ordinance relating to data centers in
Monticello.
I believe this statement added to the ordinance would deter for now the Data
Center being proposed
and I hope and pray that you all vote : “NO to Data Center in Monticello” and
No to any tax relief or incentive for them .
My reasons for NOT wanting a Data Center in Monticello are as follows:
Strain on water resources
Infrastructure and Financial Burden. Power demands and water and
sewer demands.
Quality of Life/Noise and Emissions
Environmental and Health Concerns/Risks. Toxic air pollutants.
Decline in property values and sky-rocketing electricity prices.
Please prioritize the long term well being and quality of life for the residents of Monticello by
rejecting any proposal for a data center and adding to the ordinance requirements for
this and future requests for a data center that they have to pay for and supply
their own power and water!!!!!!
Iris Harris
Iris Harris,
From:Kay L
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Data Center
Date:Tuesday, December 16, 2025 9:57:25 AM
Hello Angela,
I was unable to attend last evenings meeting, but I wanted to touch base my comments.
I live on which is directly across from one proposed site. I have done my
research and I find it rather disturbing that a data center would be considered near any
residential area. There are mostly families in that entire area that would be impacted by the
noise, financial burden, potential health impacts.
I can appreciate the revenue attraction, but the money towards the city doesn't make up for
each families financial burden your askiing them to take on. Money should never take priority
over struggling families pocketbook nor health!
The rendering I saw shows no planting of large trees to hide the structure and provide a sound
barrier. Factor that cost into the plan, and someone to maintain the landscape.
I strongly oppose this data center being built on either proposed site!
Sincerely,
Kay LaMaie APRN
From:Emma Huntzinger
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Comments on the Monticello Industrial Draft AUAR
Date:Wednesday, December 17, 2025 11:16:10 PM
To whom it may concern,
I strongly oppose the proposed Monticello Industrial Technology Campus by developer
Monticello Tech, LLC (registered in New York state with no vested interest in the livability of
our local community).
I grew up in this area and after going out of state for college and starting my career, my
husband and I moved to Monticello in June of 2024 to start a family closer to our “village” of
friends and family. In the past year and a half, we bought a home near Otter Creek Park,
fixed up our kitchen, painted and prepped a nursery, and welcomed a beautiful baby girl,
who was born at the hospital in town.
Beautiful things are happening in our community every day - affordable homes are loved
and invested in, babies are born, senior photos are taken in Otter Creek - but a data center
threatens all of that.
Among the reasons I am vehemently against the building of a data center in our community
are:
Increased water and energy costs
Detrimental impacts to natural resources such as, but not limited to, Bertram Chain of
Lakes
Sound pollution ruining the peace of nearby neighborhoods
Negative health and fertility impacts found in recent studies
Decreased housing prices - no matter how you feel about the project, the public
strongly disapproves of data centers so it would absolutely affect housing prices
negatively
Minuscule jobs added for the massive investment of time, peace, money, land
Suspicious timelines hinting at an urgency to push this through before the state has a
chance to set regulations, and a general lack of transparency
I want my baby daughter to have the ability to start a family of her own if she chooses to
someday. I want to be able to afford her formula and diapers without worrying about the
water bill. More than anything, I want to take her to the lake so she grows up a proper
Minnesotan - with a love for the land and the water and the wildlife that makes this place so
wonderful.
This proposal threatens my daughter’s future in this town.
I hope to God that the city is listening to our voices and that this proposal does not come to
fruition. If it does, however, I can only hope that we can sell our house quickly and find a
community that cares about its neighbors.
Your community does not want this. I have faith that you will do the right thing.
Emma Huntzinger & baby girl E.
From:lisa Keenan
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Fwd: AUAR public comment draft
Date:Wednesday, December 17, 2025 9:07:16 PM
First I take issue with the AUAR being done by Kimley Horn. I cannot find the document I
swear I saw a document on the city website that stated Monticello Data LLC recommended
Kimley Horn. I am sure there are other qualified companies who could have done it.
The City of Monticello 2040 comprehensive plan is centered around Sustainability,
Community Health and Sense of Place. If community health is really part of the foundation of
the city then a data center should not be part of the plan. There is plenty of proof out there
they are not good for the residents' health nor the environment. If this goes through, we will
all know our sense of place is second to the almighty dollar.
Page 24 - 25 Study area future land use designations purposes & allowed uses.
A. recognizes it's unique
B. will not create conflict with other land uses, especially residential
C. Will not inhibit future growth
I agree, a data center is unique, however it will create a conflict with other land uses,
especially residential and will most likely inhibit future growth. It will create a conflict with
people's quality of life starting when constructions begins. It will reduce property values due
to the lengthy construction schedule. Look at West Des Moines, IA, Prineville, OR, or
Boardman, OR, all 10-15 years after constructions starts and nothing else nearby. Data
centers seem to repel other commercial development in a nearby radius.
Page 43 Groundwater, aquifers, springs & seeps.
5 wells may be located in the study area. If unable to reuse, wells located within study area
would be properly sealed. What would they need to be used for, why doesn't it just state the
wells will be sealed? I thought the data center would be connected to city water? What would
they be re-used for? If they are used then the water use table shown at the 12.15.25 meeting
would be incorrect.
Page 46 There are only 2 wells shown in the study area but previously the document stated
there were 5. Also, within the 1 mile radius missing the Hedrickson's well just off Hwy 25
and Davidson. Also every house in the development behind Quarry Church has a well but
they don't all appear to have dots.
Page 47 Why is industrial wastewater excluded from review in an AUAR? That doesn't make
any sense to me.
Page 44 and page 48 Non-contact cooling water proposed to be discharged into a RIB. Up to
100 million gallons per year, which is really only discharged from April - October. That is a
lot of water in a short amount of time. Very concerning for multiple reasons. At what
temperature will the water be when it is discharged? It states "consisting only of water from
groundwater wells". Wells or city water? Nothing added to it, I mean absolutely nothing
added. So the water that is discharged would be like me running water from our well into the
RIB? That is the way I am reading it, is that correct? At the 12.15.25 meeting the woman
from KH stated "there are probably some things in there". Probably?? What would these
things be and how would they affect environment or people? The RIB is also concerning
because it was stated a RIB has not previously been used for a data center in MN before. Let's
not be an environmental guinea pig.
The RIB system will consist of multiple cells, each accepting cooling water wastewater flow
for two days and then resting for six days, with rotation to ensure proper infiltration and
resting. Is this saying they will discharge into it for 2 days and the rest for 6? The MNPCA
website states: A RIB drying cycle is typically five to ten times longer than the wetting cycle.
I'm assuming a wetting cycle would be when water is being discharged into it and drying is
identified in the AUAR as resting days. If that is correct then after water is discharged into it
for 2 days the rest should be 10 to 20 days, not six days as stated in the AUAR.
The RIB system acts as a large filter, trapping most impurities at the surface. Maintenance will
involve periodic removal of the top few inches of mineral deposit-laden soil, which will be
disposed of in a landfill. I believe periodic needs to better defined. Is it monthly during the
discharge months or every other month? What exactly is periodic? If it needs to be removed
should it really go into a landfill where it can seep back into another aquifer?
Page 63 MnDNR permit for irrigation wells was a total of 76.3 million gallons per year. The
AUAR shows the draw was 88.4 million. What was done about this? What happens when
someone takes more than they are permitted to? If there is a well that is going to be re-used
for whatever purpose in this development who will monitor so they don't draw more than the
appropriation?
Page 71 Environmental site assessment safe handling and disposal. My husband had an
agreement with a previous owner of the land south and a bit east of us. We used to have a
"nature trail" back there. It has been years since we have been down there however, there used
to be old cars and 55 gallon drums and other misc junk dumped there. We have never seen
anyone come in and clean this up and am assuming that would al need to be properly disposed
of.
Once the details for scenario 1 are known, such as type of equipment, air or water cooled, the
quantity, size, location and type of generators etc then an EIS should be done. There are so
many unknowns at this point for an EIS, however my understanding is an AUAR is not as
comprehensive as an EIS.
Regarding GHG emissions estimates; AUAR states "proposers best estimate of average annual
emissions". If the end user isn't known and the equipment isn't known how accurate can this
estimate be? Once these things are known they could come back with real #'s.
Construction noise need not be addressed in an AUAR, unless there is some unusual reason to
do so. The reason would be a prolonged, up to 10 year phased build. We have not had any
previous construction projects of this length or size. Generally construction is bothersome but
is tolerated due to its short duration of time. This would be for an extended period of time and
regulations need to be re-evaluated.
One of the women at the head of the table made a comment about cooling being done by
drawing in cold air to cool during the winter. Do they then expel hot air? How much and
what is in that air? Which bring us back to once the type of equipment is known there needs
to be an EIS done.
if backup generators are needed for emergency use there could be fuel storage on site. Why is
it there only needs to be a separate EAW if it is more than 1 million gallons. Why such a large
amount? Why not have mandate an EAW at 250,000 gallons? That is a lot of fuel, which is
dangerous and potentially a target also. Is the Monticello Fire Department prepared to deal
with a fire like that?
Instead of assuming the data center will be centrally located on the property and talking about
what % of the land it will be why not mandate where it can go? If it takes up such a small %
then force them to put it in the center, if you feel you have to approve a data center.
Mitigation language that's phrased as "will consider" and "may include where possible"
doesn't count. It has to be committal language, not possibility language.
As we are looking at the November 25, 2024 report from Steve Grittman related to the
Frattalone data center proposal. I found this section on page 7 of interest.
Connectivity and Open Space. The site adjoins a wetland/pond system at its southerly edge.
This area is identified in the City’s Natural Resources Plan as a major greenway and has been
contemplated as a potential pathway route. Beyond just the open space aspect of this area, the
City has envisioned these spaces to be locations where its “Residential Amenities” District
may apply, providing opportunities for higher-end housing due to the natural resources and
setting. There are two issues for discussion in this regard. One relates to reserving a pathway
corridor along the natural greenway route. The applicants have indicated a willingness to
accommodate this plan, particularly as there are environmental constraints that can limit
development adjoining these areas. However, reserving land for residential use could have
implications both for the land area available for data center uses as well as for noise or other
impacts of the data center campus on the residential neighborhood. Managing noise generated
by these uses will be an issue to address, and even more importantly in areas of residential
development.
Obviously the city chose not to save part of this area for residential. I am guessing, at least in
part, due to the noise and other impacts of the data center campus. Bravo for not inflicting this
on more homeowners, however, what about all of the people who already live in the area,
either accross 85th or with our properties butting up to the proposed data center property?
I respectfully request you re-evaluate the AUAR and the data center project. Why not press
pause and enact a moritorium? This will provide the city with more time to evaluate the best
course of action and revise the DCPUD and AUAR.
Thank you for your time,
Lisa Keenan
From:Barb Tummel
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Data Center - NO
Date:Wednesday, December 17, 2025 4:55:50 PM
Hello -
I am not sure who I should be addressing this email to so I will start with you.
I will first say NO to any type of AI Data Center in Monticello, Minnesota!!!
I just recently heard about some AI data center that Monticello is thinking about getting inour community.
First of all, why did I not receive anything in the mail from the City regarding this? Ifsomething was sent, please share with me because I do not recall receiving anything, and Iam pretty good about reading my mail. I do not have social media, etc.
I am a lifelong resident of Monticello and have lived here since 1977. I am embarrassed atthe Block 52 building that screams "greed" that was placed in the center of town. Peopleask me all the time "What was Monticello thinking?" I do not know how to answer them in apositive way. It did not enhance the view of the Mississippi River, it took the beauty away.Please do not do that again to our town.
I definitely NO NOT want the same disaster to happen with an AI Data Center. That doesn'teven make sense to our community, wildlife, energy, resources, etc. Some examples withthe little information that I know.
An AI data center has ZERO economic benefit for our community.
An AI data center would have a negative impact on our environment and quality-of-life,including noise from backup generators, and the proximity of potential development nearexisting homes.
An AI data center would have a negative effect on property values, dust, traffic andaccidents.
Monticello prides itself on its natural beauty and wildlife. Approving this would be likespitting in the face of every citizen who calls this city home.
Why would we want the evil of AI data collection in our backyard? A Data CollectionCenter!!! Why do we want to collect people's data? And why would we want any part of it?We are better than that as a community and is not what we represent. Please listen to thecitizens and not just a few people in office making these big decisions. We deserve to bewell informed. Let's be open and honest with every citizen of Monticello. So far, I do not seethat this is happening.
Let me know who else that I should be sending this email to and how the city is informingALL citizens about this issue. I have received no information as of this date and wouldappreciate receiving some.
God bless,Barb Tummel
From:Jen T
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:AUAR/Data Center
Date:Wednesday, December 17, 2025 4:05:17 PM
Good Afternoon,
I'm writing to express my concerns over the possible addition of the two data centers in Monticello and the use of an
AUAR to determine the impact they will have. I believe a project this size should require the use of an EIS instead
of an AUAR. EIS is the tried & true tool, it provides a more robust evaluation of the project's impact on our
community. I have concerns about the lack of specificity in regard to the wording in the AUAR document itself.
The generalness of it allows for interpretation and I think this leaves our city & our people vulnerable. We can’t
rely on or trust them to look out for our interests. If we cannot complete an EIS without knowing the end user I
would like to require one once we do know as there is too much missing information to make a decision this
impactful on our community. I have many concerns around a data center in general including the impact it will have
on our land, air, & water. Data centers are known to contribute significantly to greenhouse gases and other
pollutants. In addition, they produce a constant noise that can reach up to 92dB which has been known to cause
stress, hearing loss, migraines, & sleep disturbances. I realize the proposed level is 65 dB (which still causes these
negative consequences) but also what happens once they build and they violate our agreements? They have more
money and better lawyers than we do. Data centers use massive amounts of electricity consuming as much as
100,000 households. They use millions of gallons of water for cooling systems which can put strain on the
community's water resources (we already can only water every other day). Data centers increase utility costs for
residents & cause decreases in property values. I'm failing to see how the benefit of likely over estimated tax
revenue outweighs the risks associated with a data center. Most local governments have underestimated the cost
impact of a data center and overestimated the tax revenue benefits. I’m also concerned about the congestion &
deterioration of our roads like highway 25 & our backroads. Highway 25 already has issues with traffic congestion.
These are just some of the issues that we are aware of and I believe it's the short list. I can’t emphasize this enough
an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Please reconsider looking at residential or something that will have
a positive impact on our community. Also, I’m not saying it is inevitable because I don’t believe that but if it is we
should require better for our community. If it truly is inevitable they should be required to put money into this
community beyond the taxes they pay. Like a city park, money for our community center, etc. Something to add
value since they’re taking value away. They are limited in where they can build so let’s acknowledge our value &
demand better for our community.
Thank you,
Jenna VanDenBoom
Sent from my iPhone
From:J Bishop
To:Angela Schumann
Cc:Lloyd Hilgart; Charlotte Gabler; Tracy Hinz; Lee Martie; Kip Christianson; Development Services
Subject:Response to AUAR and Data Centers
Date:Thursday, December 18, 2025 2:21:30 PM
Attachments:AUAR Response.docx
Please find attached my response to the Alternative Urban Area Review (AUAR) and data
centers in general.
I’ve also pasted it in the body of this email in case my version of Word doesn’t open for you.
Thank you,
Laura Bishop
We have lived in Monticello since March 2022. We love our house, our neighborhood,
our peaceful view out the back, and all that Monticello has to offer.
We landed in Monticello purely by accident: when considering a move from Wisconsin to
the Twin Cities area, we found the house we loved here. After moving, we discovered all
that Monti has to offer and have literally pinched ourselves to have landed in such a
beautiful city. I’ve become involved in MontiArts, we walk the trails every day and enjoy
the parks. I’ve reached out to city officials several times on various topics and have
always been impressed with the responsiveness to my comments and questions.
Until now. I’m not convinced that the City Council is really listening to their residents.
This letter will be submitted prior to the AUAR comment period ending. While I have a
laundry list of concerns about data centers coming to Monticello in general, I am not
well-enough versed in documents like the AUAR to make any specific comments about
what it includes, excludes and the like.
So – I’d like my comments to take a different approach.
The 2040 Comprehensive Plan for Monticello is created on three principles:
Sustainability
Community Health
Sense of Place.
The development of a Data Center in Monticello does *nothing* to promote ANY of the
stated goals of the 2040 plan.
There is no sustainability in a business that will take up to 10 years to build and that
would employ only 50 people once built. A more sustainable choice would be to use the
parcel to build an industrial park that is diverse in scope and that would create an array
of numerous jobs.
Data Centers come with a laundry list of potential health problems. I can see problems
already developing among my friends in the anti-Data Center “movement:” they are
stressed out, not sleeping, worried about the values of their homes and worried about
their and their families’ quality of life in the future. Not the “community health” the 2040
plan probably imagined. And all that is before ground is even broken!
Even though I am relatively new to Monticello, I have been incredibly proud and happy to
tell friends where I live. I love hosting visitors from Wisconsin and showing them around
town – they’ve always been so impressed! If a Data Center is built in town (less than half
a mile from our house “as the crow flies”), my “sense of place” will be dramatically
damaged.
The “Food and Water Watch” sent a letter to Congress on December 8, 2025, titled
“National Data Center Moratorium Now!” The letter was signed by hundreds of
organizations, including “Physicians for Social Responsibility.”
The letter reads as follows:
“We, the undersigned organizations collectively representing millions of people in
all 50 states, call on you to support a national moratorium on the approval and
construction of new data centers.
“The rapid expansion of data centers across the United States, driven by the
generative artificial intelligence (AI) and crypto boom, presents one of the biggest
environmental and social threats of our generation. This expansion is rapidly
increasing demand for energy, driving more fossil fuel pollution, straining water
resources and raising electricity prices across the country. All this compounds
the significant and concerning impacts AI is having on society, including lost jobs,
social instability and economic concentration.
“The harms of data center growth are increasingly well-established, and they are
massive.
“They include:
· Enormous electricity consumption: A tripling of data centers in the next
five years would result in data centers consuming as much electricity as
about 30 million households.
· Unsustainable water consumption: A tripling of data centers would require
as much water as is used by 18.5 million households – simply for cooling
the computer servers.
· Contribution to climate change: 56 percent of the electricity used to power
data centers is sourced from fossil fuels.
· Skyrocketing electricity costs: Electricity rates have increased 21.3
percent from 2021 to 2024 – drastically outpacing inflation – driven largely
by the rapid build-out of data centers, something that could continue to
escalate over time.
· Job losses: According to an AI executive, AI could negate half of all entry-
level white-collar jobs in the next five years and spike overall
unemployment by up to 20 percent.
“The rapid, largely unregulated rise of data centers to fuel the AI and crypto frenzy
is disrupting communities across the country and threatening Americans’
economic, environmental, climate and water security. We urge you to join our
call for a national moratorium on new data centers until adequate regulations
can be enacted to fully protect our communities, our families, our environment
and our health from the runaway damage this industry is already inflicting.
“For more information, contact Food & Water Watch Policy Director Jim Walsh –
jwalsh@fwwatch.org
“Sincerely,
“National Organizations Food & Water Watch (Letter Convener)”
The letter articulates and sums up my concerns better than I can.
I don’t want to see data centers in (or close to) Monticello at all, but I think BOTH
proposed locations have real problems.
I reached out to a classmate last week who serves on the city council in Manassas,
Virginia. I was hoping he could provide some communication tools for the “fight”
against data centers, but I was surprised to hear that he was in favor of them! He has a
first-hand experience with data centers.
He pulled up Monticello on Google Maps and found the site on 85th and Edmundson.
His exact words were, “That location is dumb as hell!”
He asked why the proposed site wasn’t up by the nuclear plant – where no one lives and
closer to the power. Or somewhere where no one lives, let alone housing developments
literally across the street. I didn’t have an answer.
I told him that that parcel was deemed “light industrial;” he said his community would
classify that location as “business/commercial, not industrial.”
So, maybe the definition of “light industrial” needs to be revised.
In May, I attended a planning commission/council meeting to discuss a proposed
residential subdivision between 85th St NE and the Cardinal Hills neighborhood. I was
so impressed with the stipulations outlined by the city for new houses – brick/stone
fronts, two trees in the front yards, a set percentage of the front of the house had to be
livable space, etc.
If the City doesn’t outright prohibit the building of data centers, I hope they at least write
an ordinance with as much care and concern as that which applies to the front of
houses.
One last thought. If Council approves the data center proposal/s, I think the City of
Monticello will need to come up with a different logo.
The swans will no longer grace our skies due to noise pollution and changes to their
ecosystem.
Please restore our faith in our elected officials and public servants and just say NO to
data centers. We’d all be better for it.
Thank you,
Laura Bishop
From:Kate Brown
To:Angela Schumann; Alison Harwood
Subject:Re: Monticello Industrial Development - Draft AUAR
Date:Thursday, December 18, 2025 5:28:43 PM
Attachments:image001.png
Hello,
My apologies for this being late. I have been extremely ill and didn't realize today was the
last day. This goes into my question. As someone with a compromised immune system,
how is the AUAR going to determine the long-term health effects of a massive data
center so close in proximity to family neighborhoods? There are new studies coming out
almost daily on what these data centers are doing to those living close by. Not only are
electric bills skyrocketing, wells run dry, enough noise and light pollution to drive a
person insane, and it's looking like deadly health ramifications, if not, enough sickness
to put a person in massive medical debt and have a poor quality of life. NO TO THE DATA
CENTERS!!
Kate Brown
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Get Outlook for Android
From: Angela Schumann <Angela.Schumann@MonticelloMN.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2025 10:57:21 AM
To: Angela Schumann <Angela.Schumann@MonticelloMN.gov>; Alison Harwood
<aharwood@wsbeng.com>
Subject: Monticello Industrial Development - Draft AUAR
On behalf of the City of Monticello, please find below a link to the Draft AUAR and
Mitigation Plan for the Monticello Industrial Development study area. The City of Monticello
approved the Draft AUAR and Mitigation Plan for distribution at the November 10, 2025, City
Council Meeting.
Environmental Reviews | Monticello, MN
The AUAR process provides local governments with the opportunity to evaluate how different
land uses may impact the community's environment, providing environmental analysis before
major development occurs and helping inform future land use decisions. An AUAR is not a
project approval document; it provides information useful to planning for the management and
mitigation of impacts.
The Monticello Industrial AUAR evaluates two development land use scenarios, a light
industrial park land use scenario as outlined in the Monticello 2040 Comprehensive Plan and a
technology campus (data center) land use scenario. This AUAR study area encompasses
approximately 550 acres on 16 parcels in Monticello Township, Minnesota. The study area is
comprised of land generally located south of 85th St NE, west of Edmonson Ave NE, and east
of Davidson Ave NE, within the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area.
The public is invited to review and provide comment on the Draft AUAR and mitigation plan.
You are receiving this email because you have previously provided comments on the
Monticello Industrial AUAR Scoping Document.
The 30-day comment period began on November 18, 2025. Comments will be accepted
through 4:00 PM on December 18, 2025, and should be addressed to:
angela.schumann@monticellomn.gov.
An Open House on Thursday, November 20, 2025 is also scheduled as an opportunity for
additional public information and feedback on the Monticello Industrial AUAR. The Open
House will be held from 6-8 PM at the Monticello Community Center.
Angela Schumann
Community Development Director
Development Services
763-271-3224
505 Walnut St, Suite 1, Monticello, MN 55362
MonticelloMN.gov | Facebook | Subscribe to E-News
Email correspondence to and from the City of Monticello government offices is subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act
and may be disclosed to third parties.
From:Debra Campbell
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Reject Data Center
Date:Thursday, December 18, 2025 1:11:16 PM
Public Comment on the Draft Monticello
Industrial AUAR
To the Mayor, City Council, Planning Commission, and Staff,
I am submitting this public comment to formally express my opposition to the Draft
Monticello Industrial AUAR as it relates to Scenario 1, which explicitly evaluates a large-
scale data center / technology campus within the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area.
While the AUAR is described as a “planning tool,” its adoption carries lasting
consequences that materially shape future development approvals. Based on the
City’s own document, the risks, uncertainties, and long-term burdens of this
proposal outweigh any speculative benefits.
1. The AUAR Pre-Approves a Massive Worst-Case Development
The AUAR evaluates a “worst-case” development scenario of up to 3,000,000 square feet
of technology or data center uses across 550 acres (pp. 7–8).
“The intent of the AUAR is to recognize the worst-case potential impacts and identify
mitigation measures that may be taken to compensate for those impacts.” (p. 7)
This is not theoretical. Once adopted, this AUAR becomes the environmental ceiling
for future projects, allowing subsequent approvals to rely on this document without
re-opening full environmental review. Community opposition at later stages becomes
functionally limited.
2. Data Centers Are Acknowledged as a Unique and High-Burden Use
The City’s own 2040 Comprehensive Plan language, quoted directly in the AUAR,
acknowledges that data centers are fundamentally different from other industrial uses:
“The City’s 2040 Plan recognizes data centers as a singularly unique land use due to size
and scope.” (p. 25)
“Data center uses shall demonstrate convincingly that its burden on municipal services,
infrastructure, or fiscal condition is completely mitigated…” (p. 26)
The AUAR does not demonstrate this convincingly. Instead, it defers critical
determinations to future permits, future studies, and future mitigation AFTER the
AUAR is adopted.
3. Water Demand Is Significant and Uncapped
“Scenario 1 would require significantly lower operational traffic and potentially higher
water/wastewater demands compared to Scenario 2.” (p. 12)
Scenario 1 anticipates heavy groundwater use; Potential Rapid Infiltration Basin (RIB)
systems; Future water appropriation permit amendments (p. 21–22)
Yet these permits are not secured, and the long-term sustainability of groundwater withdrawal is
modeled - not guaranteed.
The AUAR itself acknowledges increasing climate stress:
“There is a projected 2.6% to 13.8% increase in 100-year storm intensity by 2035 and a
projected 5.2% to 26.9% increase by 2060.” (p. 12)
Approving a water-intensive land use under these conditions is fiscally and
environmentally irresponsible.
4. Permanent Loss of Farmland of Statewide Importance
“77 percent of the study area is considered farmland of statewide importance.” (p. 23)
“Cropland: 444 acres existing → 0 acres proposed.” (Table 3, p. 18)
This loss is irreversible. No meaningful farmland preservation strategy is included,
only replacement landscaping and engineered stormwater features.
5. Wetlands and Natural Systems Are Reduced
The AUAR documents a reduction in wetlands under Scenario 1 and relies heavily on
mitigation and engineered infrastructure:
“…preservation of wetlands or woodlands as required by ordinance and/or to the extent
practical.” (pp. 17–18)
“Mitigation” is not the same as protection, especially as precipitation intensity
increases and systems fail under real-world conditions.
6. Infrastructure Burdens Are Shifted Forward – Likely to TAXPAYERS
The AUAR anticipates new trunk water and sewer lines, electrical substations, and roadway
improvements (pp. 11–12), without binding financial assurances protecting taxpayers.
7. Annexation Removes Local Control PERMANENTLY
The AUAR confirms: “The study area is outside the city of Monticello and would require the
city to annex land from the Township.” (pp. 30–31)
Once annexed, township residents permanently lose land-use authority, despite bearing
many of the long-term impacts.
8. Few Permanent Jobs, Poor Land-Use Efficiency
While not quantified in the AUAR, data centers are widely known to generate very few
permanent jobs relative to land consumed. The AUAR offers no job minimums, local hiring
requirements, or wage standards.
This stands in contrast to other light industrial uses contemplated in Scenario 2.
Conclusion
For these significant reasons, I urge the City of Monticello to REJECT this project that
would alter the identity of our community forever.
Respectfully submitted,
Debra Campbell
12/18/2025
Sent from my iPhone
From:alexander cutchey
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) Comments
Date:Thursday, December 18, 2025 4:18:24 PM
Greetings Ms. Schumann,
I've reviewed the draft AUAR evaluating the two development land use scenarios, and
generally I've found the document outlines a worst case scenario consistent with my
understanding and impressions of these projects, absent an ordinance, conditional
use permit, or specific developer configuration to mitigate environmental harms, and
recommend this document be approved to help substantiate the record and guide
ordinance development, and the Council in making a final decision.
Best Regards,
--
Alexander J. Cutchey, MBA
Attorney at Law
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the
addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you
are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please
immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is
strictly prohibited.
From:Jan R. Davis
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Data Center comments
Date:Thursday, December 18, 2025 11:56:36 AM
I have lived in Monticello since 1991. I feel that the city has usually had the best interests
of the community in mind when decisions are made. The information I have read about
data centers concerns me greatly. The massive amounts of power used and the amount
of water needed would be huge drains on local resources. Noise pollution is another
side-effect of large data centers in other places. Monticello does not need noise
pollution. Who wants to live near a source of constant noise?
The environmental issues regarding wetlands, wild life and pollution are other factors
which could affect our area's quality of life. Other than construction, these centers
appear to employ very few ongoing staff. I am very much opposed to the city even
considering the building of a data center.
Jan Davis
Get Outlook for iOS
From:Dennis DuFrane
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:AUAR
Date:Thursday, December 18, 2025 11:27:03 AM
I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to submit my comments regarding the AUAR
review, as public comments are due today.
One significant concern I have is the lack of information in the AUAR about how the data
center and developer plan to manage the water needed for cooling the machines. In
Monticello, our water is known for containing high concentrations of metals like iron and
copper. From my own experience, I can attest to this—owning a large pool (15,000 gallons), I
find that the amount of balancing chemicals required to maintain water quality is excessive.
Without proper treatment, the water can turn dark brown and leave rust rings around the pool.
I am particularly concerned that there is no mention in the AUAR of how the data center plans
to address these water quality issues. Specifically, I would like to know what chemical
treatments will be applied to the water used for cooling, and how they will manage any water
that has been chemically modified.
It is crucial for our community to avoid situations similar to those experienced in Virginia and
Ohio, where high concentrations of contaminants have been linked to cancer cases associated
with data centers.
Thank you for considering my comments. I appreciate the opportunity to provide input and
look forward to your response regarding these important issues.
Dennis DuFrane
From:Adam Felix
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Data center questions
Date:Thursday, December 18, 2025 12:31:11 PM
Hello, couple questions for tonights meeting, I'd love to attend, but I am quite sick, good old
head cold.
I have a question though, have any of the decision makers in this data center quest actually
lived to next too or near a data center? I'd like to propose that they do this, and from a non
bias location, a location that accurately depicts how horrible a data center in a residential
location. For at least 2 months.
I have had friends who lived near data centers, their water wells quite working correctly, their
property value tanked, their electrical jumped. I don't mean to be passive, but it's easy to listen
to an "expert" and then spend other people's money. But please consider people's livelihoods
and comfort. There's a reason the nuclear power plant is far away from the residential area.
Basic logic.
Data centers are a necessary evil in today's world, but there's a time and place for them, like
anything else.
Please consider the outcry of your public, before you listen to builder promises. They are just
another car salesman..
Please see below, public statement.
Public Comment on the Draft Monticello Industrial AUAR
To the Mayor, City Council, Planning Commission, and Staff,
I am submitting this public comment to formally express my opposition to the Draft
Monticello Industrial AUAR as it relates to Scenario 1, which explicitly evaluates a large-
scale data center / technology campus within the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area.
While the AUAR is described as a “planning tool,” its adoption carries lasting consequences
that materially shape future development approvals. Based on the City’s own document, the
risks, uncertainties, and long-term burdens of this proposal outweigh any speculative benefits.
1. The AUAR Pre-Approves a Massive Worst-Case Development
The AUAR evaluates a “worst-case” development scenario of up to 3,000,000 square feet of
technology or data center uses across 550 acres (pp. 7–8).
“The intent of the AUAR is to recognize the worst-case potential impacts and identify
mitigation measures that may be taken to compensate for those impacts.” (p. 7)
This is not theoretical. Once adopted, this AUAR becomes the environmental ceiling for
future projects, allowing subsequent approvals to rely on this document without re-opening
full environmental review. Community opposition at later stages becomes functionally limited.
2. Data Centers Are Acknowledged as a Unique and High-Burden Use
The City’s own 2040 Comprehensive Plan language, quoted directly in the AUAR,
acknowledges that data centers are fundamentally different from other industrial uses:
“The City’s 2040 Plan recognizes data centers as a singularly unique land use due to size and
scope.” (p. 25)
“Data center uses shall demonstrate convincingly that its burden on municipal services,
infrastructure, or fiscal condition is completely mitigated…” (p. 26)
The AUAR does not demonstrate this convincingly. Instead, it defers critical determinations to
future permits, future studies, and future mitigation AFTER the AUAR is adopted.
3. Water Demand Is Significant and Uncapped
“Scenario 1 would require significantly lower operational traffic and potentially higher
water/wastewater demands compared to Scenario 2.” (p. 12)
Scenario 1 anticipates heavy groundwater use; Potential Rapid Infiltration Basin (RIB)
systems; Future water appropriation permit amendments (p. 21–22)
Yet these permits are not secured, and the long-term sustainability of groundwater withdrawal
is modeled - not guaranteed.
The AUAR itself acknowledges increasing climate stress:
“There is a projected 2.6% to 13.8% increase in 100-year storm intensity by 2035 and a
projected 5.2% to 26.9% increase by 2060.” (p. 12)
Approving a water-intensive land use under these conditions is fiscally and environmentally
irresponsible.
4. Permanent Loss of Farmland of Statewide Importance
“77 percent of the study area is considered farmland of statewide importance.” (p. 23)
“Cropland: 444 acres existing → 0 acres proposed.” (Table 3, p. 18)
This loss is irreversible. No meaningful farmland preservation strategy is included, only
replacement landscaping and engineered stormwater features.
5. Wetlands and Natural Systems Are Reduced
The AUAR documents a reduction in wetlands under Scenario 1 and relies heavily on
mitigation and engineered infrastructure:
“…preservation of wetlands or woodlands as required by ordinance and/or to the extent
practical.” (pp. 17–18)
“Mitigation” is not the same as protection, especially as precipitation intensity increases and
systems fail under real-world conditions.
6. Infrastructure Burdens Are Shifted Forward – Likely to TAXPAYERS
The AUAR anticipates new trunk water and sewer lines, electrical substations, and roadway
improvements (pp. 11–12), without binding financial assurances protecting taxpayers.
7. Annexation Removes Local Control PERMANENTLY
The AUAR confirms: “The study area is outside the city of Monticello and would require the
city to annex land from the Township.” (pp. 30–31)
Once annexed, township residents permanently lose land-use authority, despite bearing many
of the long-term impacts.
8. Few Permanent Jobs, Poor Land-Use Efficiency
While not quantified in the AUAR, data centers are widely known to generate very few
permanent jobs relative to land consumed. The AUAR offers no job minimums, local hiring
requirements, or wage standards.
This stands in contrast to other light industrial uses contemplated in Scenario 2.
Conclusion
For these significant reasons, I urge the City of Monticello to REJECT this project that would
alter the identity of our community forever.
Thank you for your time,
Adam Felix
From:Elisabeth Gliddon
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:AUAR Comments
Date:Thursday, December 18, 2025 12:02:24 PM
Subject: Comments on AUAR for Proposed Light
Industrial Development – Monticello, MN
To the City of Monticello Planning Commission and City Council,
I am a resident of Monticello submitting comments regarding the Alternative Urban Areawide
Review (AUAR) for the approximately 550-acre area proposed for “light industrial”
development. I appreciate the opportunity to comment early in this process, particularly given
the scale, location, and long-term implications of the contemplated uses.
While I support responsible economic development, I have serious concerns that proceeding
with this AUAR prior to the adoption of clear city, state, and regional policies governing
high-intensity industrial uses such as data centers would be premature and expose the city
to long-term environmental, infrastructure, and community risks.
1. Premature Review Without a Specific Proposal
This AUAR is being conducted without a defined site plan or specific development
proposal, yet it is funded by private developers with an apparent interest in data-center-type
uses. This places the City in the position of evaluating significant impacts based on
assumptions rather than enforceable commitments.
An AUAR at this stage limits meaningful public review and risks pre-approving impacts that
may later prove substantially greater than anticipated once an actual proposal is submitted.
2. Water Use, Wastewater, and Receiving Waters
The AUAR raises serious unresolved questions regarding water consumption, wastewater
handling, and thermal and chemical impacts:
Proposed routing of water from the wastewater treatment plant and back again requires
worst-case, not average, demand analysis, including drought-year scenarios.
The use of a Rapid Infiltration Basin (RIB) to recycle and ultimately discharge water
back into the aquifer raises concerns about temperature, chemical additives, long-
term groundwater quality, and monitoring responsibilities.
Pelican Lake and the Mississippi River corridor are sensitive receiving waters. Even
treated discharges may affect water temperature, nutrient loading, and aquatic
ecosystems, particularly at industrial scales.
The AUAR relies heavily on mitigation measures described as things the developer “could”
do, rather than binding commitments the City “will require.” This creates uncertainty and
weakens environmental protections.
3. Cumulative Environmental and Land Use Impacts
The proposed area sits:
Within close proximity to brand-new residential neighborhoods
Near Pelican Lake
Adjacent to the Mississippi River corridor
Converting hundreds of acres to impermeable or semi-impermeable industrial use will:
Increase stormwater runoff and reduce natural filtration during heavy rain events
Amplify heat island effects
Permanently alter land that currently provides environmental buffering
The AUAR does not sufficiently analyze cumulative impacts if similar facilities cluster in
this area, which is a well-documented pattern for data-center development.
4. Energy Demand and Infrastructure Risk
High-intensity industrial uses such as data centers pose extraordinary electrical demands. The
AUAR does not clearly address:
Peak electrical load and redundancy requirements
Who bears the cost of grid upgrades
Impacts on regional capacity and resilience
Backup generation, including noise, emissions, and testing schedules
Given Monticello’s existing energy infrastructure and history of complex energy facilities,
transparency, enforceable standards, and contingency planning are essential.
5. Health, Safety, and Quality of Life
Residents near the proposed area may be affected by:
24/7 operational noise and low-frequency hum
Construction impacts lasting years
Lighting and visual disruption
Emergency response demands related to electrical and fire hazards
These impacts are not adequately addressed in the AUAR, particularly given the unusually
close proximity to new residential developments.
6. Zoning and Policy Mismatch
Labeling these uses as “light industrial” does not reflect the scale, intensity, and permanence
of modern data centers. Approval under existing zoning risks:
Establishing a precedent without appropriate safeguards
Limiting the City’s ability to regulate future proposals
Locking in infrastructure obligations for decades
7. Need for Legislative and Regulatory Frameworks Before Approval
I strongly urge the City to pause approval of this AUAR until it has adopted:
Data-center-specific water-use regulations
Energy allocation and grid impact policies
Binding environmental performance standards
Clear limits on proximity to residential areas
Strong enforcement and monitoring mechanisms
Proceeding without these frameworks places undue risk on residents, natural resources, and
future councils.
Conclusion
The scale and uncertainty of the impacts contemplated in this AUAR warrant a more cautious
approach. Approval at this stage would be premature and could constrain the City’s ability to
protect water resources, environmental quality, infrastructure capacity, and community well-
being.
I respectfully request that the City:
Require additional analysis and specificity
Replace “could” mitigation language with enforceable commitments
From:Chace Huntzinger
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Comments on the Monticello Industrial Draft AUAR
Date:Thursday, December 18, 2025 1:49:09 PM
To whom it will concern,
My name is Chace Huntzinger. My wife and I moved from Iowa to Monticello in June 2024
to start a family. We welcomed our daughter to the world in April 2025. My wife is a
Minnesota native, but prior to moving to Monticello, we visited a lot of different
communities. Monticello is the perfect spot for us because Montis prioritize their kids,
take care of their properties, and support the community. Data centers violate all three
of these principles.
Data centers threaten to increase the costs of energy and water while simultaneously
driving down housing values. Data centers pollute their environments. They leak
chemicals into the water, and they increase the need for non-renewable energy
systems. Data centers are loud on a normal day. If there's a power disruption, I wonder
how loud the generators will be.
How will this impact Monticello? Energy and water costs will go up for families and
businesses. Montis located near the data centers will immediately lose a lot of property
value, and the rest of the community will be adversely impacted as people will not
choose to live in a small town with a data center.
If Monticello permits the construction of the data centers, I believe my family will have to
leave.
Best,
Chace Huntzinger
From:Peg Jensen
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Data Centers
Date:Wednesday, December 17, 2025 10:22:32 AM
As a resident of Monticello I am totally against Data Centers being built here.
Due to Noise Pollution, Light Pollution, Water Usage and Electrical Usage.
The Data centers would drive costs up, Property values down and endanger wildlife.
Further more any fines you would impose on these places would be chump change to them.
Mark my words they would just violate ordinances and just pay the fines like it was no big
deal.
They would not house as many employees as they say they would and would drain the city's
resources.
Peggy Jensen
From:Theodore Keith
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Re: AUAR report about the zoning planning
Date:Thursday, December 18, 2025 2:25:58 PM
Here's a link to some research
https://panoramanow.com/research-indicates-the-bird-population-could-die-on-lake-george-
hobart-with-data-center-operations/
On Thu, Dec 18, 2025, 2:19 PM Theodore Keith wrote:
Regarding where the planning is being done regarding changing a zone to industrial so a
data center can move in. Has it brought up that the Trumpeter Swan is a Species of Special
Concern in Minnesota. Flocks of Trumpeter swans commonly rest, feed and live in the fields
across from where the zone is proposed. Would the rezoning have an impact on the
Trumpeter swans ? Would they return to the area? Would the increased noise in the area
scare them away? We as humans have already brought them to the brink of extinction. Do
we want to repeat history and possibly harm a bird that is so majestic? It's part of the city
logo. I would think Monticello would want to do everything in its power to keep them in the
area.
Thank you for listening to my concerns.
Theodore Keith,BSN,RN
From:Bernard Lang
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:AUAR Comments
Date:Thursday, December 18, 2025 3:57:59 PM
Here are some facts about data centers and why this poses a threat to the local community.
It has been said that they will be using generators for some power or backup power for the
proposed data center. These run on diesel fuel that produce harmful particulates, mostly taken
care of by emission components, but not completely. And alternative energy takes more space,
costs more money, and uses resources already heavily being used locally. Here the opening
paragraph from staxengineering.com
All sources will be linked at the bottom of this email.
"Data centers have become the backbone of our global economy, but their rapid proliferation
comes at a significant environmental cost. All data centers worldwide combined consume 32%
more electricity than all of Britain. Power generation is already the largest source of carbon
dioxide (CO2) emissions in the world, and the energy required to keep these essential data
centers operational, while staggering, is only poised to increase dramatically."
That doesn't mention they may also have "battery backups". Now remember the EV world
exploded a few years ago, and now we are seeing the pollution large batteries create, to be
built, used, and destroyed.
Do you really want that in your backyard?
I have spoken to multiple residents, businesses, and potential homebuyers about scenarios like
data center construction. They all said the same thing. The buyers would simply be
uninterested and search elsewhere, homeowners are afraid the value of their home would
decrease substantially. Yahoo.com :
What makes the biggest difference between burden and benefit is how close the
data center is to your property, what buffers exist in terms of landscaping or other
noise mitigation efforts, local zoning regulations that keep potential disturbances in
check, and how prepared local utility companies are to provide services without
frequent rate hikes.
Now will Cushman & Wakefield (or whomever) be transparent about this? You would hope
so, but I have my doubts.
I've spoken to local small business owners about their opinion on the data center proposals.
They all have the same opinion. They would wish to move, but afraid of who would replace
them?
A major question I ask is, what about the rest of us?
What about the people taking care of their families every day in their homes, the people
commuting to work every day, the kids that play in the parks. Those people love this city, but
will their voices be heard?
And I heard a comment about the noise from the Q&A last time I went, and a gentlemen
compared the noise it would make, and compared it to a farm he lived by. A human being,
working, VERY hard, with the land, not on the land, to grow and produce a product for
another person. That is not a building.
We already have our water resources in check with the local nuclear power plant. Energy
fields of solar surrounding us. A metal recycling plant that caught on FIRE and created an air
pollution hazard. Do we REALLY need something ELSE to put a strain on the electrical grid,
water sources, daily traffic, constant construction issues, and whatever harmful affects that
remain unknown to us?
To me, the cons outweigh the pros.
Money comes and goes. Money doesn't define a city. The people do. Listen to them.
https://www.staxengineering.com/stax-hub/the-environmental-impact-of-data-centers/
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/articles/data-centers-harm-help-property-121000846.html
Bernard
From:Fam Oli
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Fwd: AUAR Questions
Date:Thursday, December 18, 2025 4:15:48 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Fam Oli
Date: Thu, Dec 18, 2025, 3:58 PM
Subject: AUAR Questions
To: <angela.schuman@monticello.gov>
"AUARs for 'large specific projects' are required by law to include 'clear, complete and
detailed project descriptions.' They are also required to study any direct, indirect and
cumulative environmental impacts that are anticipated in an AUAR study area from
the proposed project." (Press Release MCEA, Aug 4 2025)
1.How does the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) satisfy legal
requirements given the absence of a formal delineation of duties?
While the developer is frequently identified as the party responsible for funding
mitigation, specific tasks and accountabilities remain undefined. Furthermore, in
instances of joint responsibility between the City and the developer, there is no clear
distinction regarding the division of responsibilities. To provide true assurance , the
AUAR must provide a precise assignment of responsibilities to prevent oversight and
operational overlap.
In page 15 of AUAR under adaptations for the water resources, language states that
the "Developer could consider using native plants and perennials for landscaping
and stormwater features to absorb water and reduce the water demand for irrigation
and could use native plants and perennials for landscaping adjacent to water
resource buffers and If using groundwater, water reuse systems such as cycling
water, will be implemented for cooling purposes to reduce water"
2.If the developer chooses not to use native plants and perennials to absorb stormwater what
else is in place in AUAR to ensure absorption of stormwater?
3.If the developer chooses not to use groundwater for reuse, does the AUAR address what
will be used in its place to ensure reuse of water?
It also states in page 16 of the AUAR, "Water efficient irrigation design will
be considered for any landscape irrigation systems"
4.If the developer considers water efficient irrigation design but chooses not to
implement water efficient irrigation, does the AUAR outline clearly what
measure must take place instead in order to protect water resources?
5.Are pages 15 and 16 of the AUAR truly clear and complete when applying questions 2-4
since they are presented as options afforded to the developer and therefore all of them can be
denied leaving necessary adaptations unaddressed and unmet?
Additionally listed within page 16 of the AUAR " Additional adaptations discussed"
6.How are the legal conditions for the AUAR to be clear and complete met when using the
language "additional adaptations discussed"? This is neither clear, nor complete and it also
leaves room for adaptations that would otherwise be deemed unacceptable or insufficient to be
proposed after the AUAR is adopted.
In page 17 of the AUAR, the Resource Category of Fish, Wildlife, Plant Communities, and
Sensitive Ecological Resources (Rare Features) references a crossover of adaptations that were
listed previously on page 15. Unfortunately, this assumes the developer will be implementing
an adaptation that was outlined as optional (see question #2 and its clarifying paragraph listed
previous to it).
7.Can the AUAR list the use of native plants as a suitable habitat adaptation listed on page 17
while simultaneously claiming it is optional on page 15?
8.Where does the AUAR cover suitable habitat adaptation for fish that are in the proposed
area as well as those in surrounding areas that will be indirectly impacted?
Page 18 of the AUAR states "The project proposer will use native plants in landscape design
and will maintain existing significant floodplain and wetland complexes as feasible."
9.Who/what department will be determining the feasibility of the developer maintaining
existing floodplain and wetland complexes?
10.If it is proven impossible for the developer to maintain some or all of the existing
floodplain and wetland complexes, to what extent can they proceed?
11. Have studies been performed to understand the direct and indirect environmental impacts
if some or all of the existing floodplain and wetland complexes were to cease to exist?
12.Are certain wetlands in the proposed area (as well as surrounding areas that may be
indirectly impacted) given higher priority of protection over others? If so, why or why not?
On Page 19 of the AUAR both proposed data centers are looking to remove a significant
acreage of trees (15 for scenario 1 and 25 for scenario 2). It is listed within table 5 that that
the same respective acreage of trees will be replaced with new trees. The AUAR fails to
clarify much about this process with the exception of the fine print at the bottom of the page
referencing what time of year to remove the trees.
13.Per the AUAR page 19, is the developer responsible for paying for new trees to be put in?
If so, where is that stated?
14.Per the AUAR page 19, who/what department will determine whether winter removal is
feasible?
15.Per the AUAR page 19, should technical assistance from the Fish and Wildlife Service be
required, who will be responsible for the cost of utilizing their assistance?
16.What direct, indirect and cumulative environmental impacts will the tree removal have on
birds and animals that will effectively be losing their homes with the removal of the trees (post
migration if removed during winter)?
17.Have these impacts been studied? By whom/what department?
18.How long will the proposed new trees take to grow to be viable for wildlife?
19.What are the proposed adaptations for wildlife losing their homes? For those losing their
homes, where will wildlife be anticipated to migrate to?
Page 21 of the AUAR details which Unit of Government and type of application the developer
will apply for if applicable.
20.Are the permits and approvals listed within table 6 considered required?
21.Who/what department determines if it is applicable for the developer to qualify for a
permit? How is this decision made?
Since the AUAR has been expressly described as referring to maximum impacts, we need to
ensure that impacts are not underrepresented or missing altogether. For the good of the
residents of Monticello (as well as neighboring cities which may be directly or indirectly
impacted) impacts should be included in the AUAR especially if we can see concerns that
haven't been addressed in other cases of Data Center production simply because it is such a
relatively new industry with many unknowns.
Angela Schumann herself pointed out how important it is to learn from the mistakes of
other cities and states that have had issues with regards to lack of thorough process when
putting in Data Centers. She also pointed out how important it is to use relevant data
regarding Data Centers within the state and references of matters not to be too dated.
Therefore here are some mistakes we need to learn from regarding noise impacts that are not
being mitigated or properly dealt with in the state of MN in recently within the last half of this
year:
Hermantown Case (Project Loon): In November 2025, the Minnesota Center for
Environmental Advocacy (MCEA) and the grassroots group Stop the Hermantown
Data Center filed a lawsuit to halt a hyperscale project. They argue the city’s
environmental review failed to disclose the true scale of the data center, which
residents claim will produce a "constant drone" making it impossible to sleep with
windows open.
Pine Island Appeal: In October 2025, MCEA appealed Pine Island’s environmental
review, alleging it lacked the specific analysis required to address "noise impacts" and
other environmental risks.
North Mankato Suit: A similar lawsuit was filed in August 2025 regarding a 4-million-
square-foot "technology park" (alleged to be a data center), where plaintiffs claim the
project’s main noise source—computers and cooling—was not properly disclosed or
mitigated.
Page 25 of the AUAR states that "Data center use locations will not create conflict with other
land uses, especially residential land uses, through off-site impacts including unusual
amounts of noise, lights, odors, or other similar aspects"
22. How is the AUAR constructed to ensure that Monticello residents aren't expected to risk
the same fate of the 3 examples provided?
The WHO guidelines for community noise recommend less than 30 A-weighted
decibels (dB(A)) in bedrooms during the night for a sleep of good quality and less
than 35 dB(A) in classrooms to allow good teaching and learning conditions.
The WHO guidelines for night noise recommend less than 40 dB(A) of annual
average (Lnight) outside of bedrooms to prevent adverse health effects from night
noise.
Established guidelines and research consistently point to noise levels exceeding 40
decibels (dba) at night as significantly detrimental to sleep quality.
23. How can the AUAR make sure that measures are in place to prevent unacceptable noise
pollution before construction takes place?
Page 86 of the AUAR states: "AUAR Guidance: Construction noise need not be addressed in
an AUAR, unless there is some unusual reason to do so"
24. Since the decibels for Data Centers are considered to exceed numbers signficantly
detrimental to sleep quality, why isn't the AUAR considering this reason enough to include it
in the AUAR?
HFC leakage refers to the unintended release of synthetic refrigerant gases from cooling
systems into the atmosphere.
Even though it is unintended, the AUAR states on page 85 that scenario 1 approximates
247.18 tons of HFC leakage and senario 2 approximates 372.73 tons of HFC leakage.
Evaporative cooling systems often use chemicals to prevent algae and corrosion such
as biocides, bromine, or phosphorous. These can leak or be carried by water vapor
and eventually settle on the ground, where they are washed away by rain.
Most data centers maintain large fleets of diesel generators. Spills or leaks during refueling or
maintenance can introduce diesel fuel and oils into the stormwater system.
25. Why is there not a recommendation listed in the AUAR to have Data Centers meet the
permit requirements for industrial stormwater?
From:Bethany Olivares
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Re: Did you receive my email?
Date:Thursday, December 18, 2025 5:54:03 PM
Attachments:image001.png
image001.png
This is the email I sent repeatedly via
"AUARs for 'large specific projects' are required by law to include 'clear, complete and
detailed project descriptions.' They are also required to study any direct, indirect and
cumulative environmental impacts that are anticipated in an AUAR study area from
the proposed project." (Press Release MCEA, Aug 4 2025)
1. How does the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) satisfy legal
requirements given the absence of a formal delineation of duties?
While the developer is frequently identified as the party responsible for funding
mitigation, specific tasks and accountabilities remain undefined. Furthermore, in
instances of joint responsibility between the City and the developer, there is no clear
distinction regarding the division of responsibilities. To provide true assurance , the
AUAR must provide a precise assignment of responsibilities to prevent oversight and
operational overlap.
In page 15 of AUAR under adaptations for the water resources, language states that
the "Developer could consider using native plants and perennials for landscaping
and stormwater features to absorb water and reduce the water demand for irrigation
and could use native plants and perennials for landscaping adjacent to water
resource buffers and If using groundwater, water reuse systems such as cycling
water, will be implemented for cooling purposes to reduce water"
2. If the developer chooses not to use native plants and perennials to absorb stormwater what
else is in place in AUAR to ensure absorption of stormwater?
3. If the developer chooses not to use groundwater for reuse, does the AUAR address what
will be used in its place to ensure reuse of water?
It also states in page 16 of the AUAR, "Water efficient irrigation design will
be considered for any landscape irrigation systems"
4. If the developer considers water efficient irrigation design but chooses not to
implement water efficient irrigation, does the AUAR outline clearly what
measure must take place instead in order to protect water resources?
5. Are pages 15 and 16 of the AUAR truly clear and complete when applying questions 2-4
since they are presented as options afforded to the developer and therefore all of them can be
denied leaving necessary adaptations unaddressed and unmet?
Additionally listed within page 16 of the AUAR " Additional adaptations discussed"
6. How are the legal conditions for the AUAR to be clear and complete met when using the
language "additional adaptations discussed"? This is neither clear, nor complete and it also
leaves room for adaptations that would otherwise be deemed unacceptable or insufficient to be
proposed after the AUAR is adopted.
In page 17 of the AUAR, the Resource Category of Fish, Wildlife, Plant Communities, and
Sensitive Ecological Resources (Rare Features) references a crossover of adaptations that were
listed previously on page 15. Unfortunately, this assumes the developer will be implementing
an adaptation that was outlined as optional (see question #2 and its clarifying paragraph listed
previous to it).
7. Can the AUAR list the use of native plants as a suitable habitat adaptation listed on page 17
while simultaneously claiming it is optional on page 15?
8. Where does the AUAR cover suitable habitat adaptation for fish that are in the proposed
area as well as those in surrounding areas that will be indirectly impacted?
Page 18 of the AUAR states "The project proposer will use native plants in landscape design
and will maintain existing significant floodplain and wetland complexes as feasible."
9. Who/what department will be determining the feasibility of the developer maintaining
existing floodplain and wetland complexes?
10. If it is proven impossible for the developer to maintain some or all of the existing
floodplain and wetland complexes, to what extent can they proceed?
11. Have studies been performed to understand the direct and indirect environmental impacts
if some or all of the existing floodplain and wetland complexes were to cease to exist?
12. Are certain wetlands in the proposed area (as well as surrounding areas that may be
indirectly impacted) given higher priority of protection over others? If so, why or why not?
On Page 19 of the AUAR both proposed data centers are looking to remove a significant
acreage of trees (15 for scenario 1 and 25 for scenario 2). It is listed within table 5 that that
the same respective acreage of trees will be replaced with new trees. The AUAR fails to
clarify much about this process with the exception of the fine print at the bottom of the page
referencing what time of year to remove the trees.
13. Per the AUAR page 19, is the developer responsible for paying for new trees to be put in?
If so, where is that stated?
14. Per the AUAR page 19, who/what department will determine whether winter removal is
feasible?
15. Per the AUAR page 19, should technical assistance from the Fish and Wildlife Service be
required, who will be responsible for the cost of utilizing their assistance?
16. What direct, indirect and cumulative environmental impacts will the tree removal have on
birds and animals that will effectively be losing their homes with the removal of the trees (post
migration if removed during winter)?
17. Have these impacts been studied? By whom/what department?
18. How long will the proposed new trees take to grow to be viable for wildlife?
19. What are the proposed adaptations for wildlife losing their homes? For those losing their
homes, where will wildlife be anticipated to migrate to?
Page 21 of the AUAR details which Unit of Government and type of application the developer
will apply for if applicable.
20. Are the permits and approvals listed within table 6 considered required?
21. Who/what department determines if it is applicable for the developer to qualify for a
permit? How is this decision made?
Since the AUAR has been expressly described as referring to maximum impacts, we need to
ensure that impacts are not underrepresented or missing altogether. For the good of the
residents of Monticello (as well as neighboring cities which may be directly or indirectly
impacted) impacts should be included in the AUAR especially if we can see concerns that
haven't been addressed in other cases of Data Center production simply because it is such a
relatively new industry with many unknowns.
Angela Schumann herself pointed out how important it is to learn from the mistakes of
other cities and states that have had issues with regards to lack of thorough process when
putting in Data Centers. She also pointed out how important it is to use relevant data
regarding Data Centers within the state and references of matters not to be too dated.
Therefore here are some mistakes we need to learn from regarding noise impacts that are not
being mitigated or properly dealt with in the state of MN in recently within the last half of this
year:
Hermantown Case (Project Loon): In November 2025, the Minnesota Center for
Environmental Advocacy (MCEA) and the grassroots group Stop the Hermantown
Data Center filed a lawsuit to halt a hyperscale project. They argue the city’s
environmental review failed to disclose the true scale of the data center, which
residents claim will produce a "constant drone" making it impossible to sleep with
windows open.
Pine Island Appeal: In October 2025, MCEA appealed Pine Island’s environmental
review, alleging it lacked the specific analysis required to address "noise impacts" and
other environmental risks.
North Mankato Suit: A similar lawsuit was filed in August 2025 regarding a 4-million-
square-foot "technology park" (alleged to be a data center), where plaintiffs claim the
project’s main noise source—computers and cooling—was not properly disclosed or
mitigated.
Page 25 of the AUAR states that "Data center use locations will not create conflict with other
land uses, especially residential land uses, through off-site impacts including unusual
amounts of noise, lights, odors, or other similar aspects"
22. How is the AUAR constructed to ensure that Monticello residents aren't expected to risk
the same fate of the 3 examples provided?
The WHO guidelines for community noise recommend less than 30 A-weighted
decibels (dB(A)) in bedrooms during the night for a sleep of good quality and
less than 35 dB(A) in classrooms to allow good teaching and learning conditions.
The WHO guidelines for night noise recommend less than 40 dB(A) of annual
average (Lnight) outside of bedrooms to prevent adverse health effects from
night noise.
Established guidelines and research consistently point to noise levels exceeding 40
decibels (dba) at night as significantly detrimental to sleep quality.
23. How can the AUAR make sure that measures are in place to prevent unacceptable noise
pollution before construction takes place?
Page 86 of the AUAR states: "AUAR Guidance: Construction noise need not be addressed in
an AUAR, unless there is some unusual reason to do so"
24. Since the decibels for Data Centers are considered to exceed numbers signficantly
detrimental to sleep quality, why isn't the AUAR considering this reason enough to include it
in the AUAR?
HFC leakage refers to the unintended release of synthetic refrigerant gases from cooling
systems into the atmosphere.
Even though it is unintended, the AUAR states on page 85 that scenario 1 approximates
247.18 tons of HFC leakage and senario 2 approximates 372.73 tons of HFC leakage.
Evaporative cooling systems often use chemicals to prevent algae and corrosion
such as biocides, bromine, or phosphorous. These can leak or be carried by water
vapor and eventually settle on the ground, where they are washed away by rain.
Most data centers maintain large fleets of diesel generators. Spills or leaks during refueling or
maintenance can introduce diesel fuel and oils into the stormwater system.
25. Why is there not a recommendation listed in the AUAR to have Data Centers meet the
permit requirements for industrial stormwater?
On Thu, Dec 18, 2025, 4:55 PM Angela Schumann <Angela.Schumann@monticellomn.gov>
wrote:
I did not receive your original email, but did receive this one.
Please email to angela.schumann@monticello.mn.gov
Angela Schumann
Community Development Director
Development Services
763-271-3224
505 Walnut St, Suite 1, Monticello, MN 55362
MonticelloMN.gov | Facebook | Subscribe to E-News
Email correspondence to and from the City of Monticello government offices is subject to the Minnesota Government Data Practices
Act and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Bethany Olivares
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2025 4:15 PM
To: Angela Schumann <Angela.Schumann@MonticelloMN.gov>
Subject: Did you receive my email?
I sent you my email before 4pm today but it kept bouncing back. I think I finally got it
right. I am hoping you will honor the time as I sent it prior to the time due, but please let me
know either way.
Bethany Olivares
From:Elena Patterson
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Public Comment on the Draft AUAR
Date:Thursday, December 18, 2025 2:19:48 PM
Public Comment on the Draft Monticello Industrial AUAR
Public Comment on the Draft Monticello Industrial AUAR
To the Mayor, City Council, Planning Commission, and Staff,
I am submitting this public comment to formally express my opposition to the Draft
Monticello Industrial AUAR as it relates to Scenario 1, which explicitly evaluates a large-
scale data center / technology campus within the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area.
While the AUAR is described as a “planning tool,” its adoption carries lasting consequences
that materially shape future development approvals. Based on the City’s own document, the
risks, uncertainties, and long-term burdens of this proposal outweigh any speculative benefits.
1. The AUAR Pre-Approves a Massive Worst-Case Development
The AUAR evaluates a “worst-case” development scenario of up to 3,000,000 square feet of
technology or data center uses across 550 acres (pp. 7–8).
“The intent of the AUAR is to recognize the worst-case potential impacts and identify
mitigation measures that may be taken to compensate for those impacts.” (p. 7)
This is not theoretical. Once adopted, this AUAR becomes the environmental ceiling for
future projects, allowing subsequent approvals to rely on this document without re-opening
full environmental review. Community opposition at later stages becomes functionally limited.
2. Data Centers Are Acknowledged as a Unique and High-Burden Use
The City’s own 2040 Comprehensive Plan language, quoted directly in the AUAR,
acknowledges that data centers are fundamentally different from other industrial uses:
“The City’s 2040 Plan recognizes data centers as a singularly unique land use due to size and
scope.” (p. 25)
“Data center uses shall demonstrate convincingly that its burden on municipal services,
infrastructure, or fiscal condition is completely mitigated…” (p. 26)
The AUAR does not demonstrate this convincingly. Instead, it defers critical determinations to
future permits, future studies, and future mitigation AFTER the AUAR is adopted.
3. Water Demand Is Significant and Uncapped
“Scenario 1 would require significantly lower operational traffic and potentially higher
water/wastewater demands compared to Scenario 2.” (p. 12)
Scenario 1 anticipates heavy groundwater use; Potential Rapid Infiltration Basin (RIB)
systems; Future water appropriation permit amendments (p. 21–22)
Yet these permits are not secured, and the long-term sustainability of groundwater withdrawal
is modeled - not guaranteed.
The AUAR itself acknowledges increasing climate stress:
“There is a projected 2.6% to 13.8% increase in 100-year storm intensity by 2035 and a
projected 5.2% to 26.9% increase by 2060.” (p. 12)
Approving a water-intensive land use under these conditions is fiscally and environmentally
irresponsible.
4. Permanent Loss of Farmland of Statewide Importance
“77 percent of the study area is considered farmland of statewide importance.” (p. 23)
“Cropland: 444 acres existing → 0 acres proposed.” (Table 3, p. 18)
This loss is irreversible. No meaningful farmland preservation strategy is included, only
replacement landscaping and engineered stormwater features.
5. Wetlands and Natural Systems Are Reduced
The AUAR documents a reduction in wetlands under Scenario 1 and relies heavily on
mitigation and engineered infrastructure:
“…preservation of wetlands or woodlands as required by ordinance and/or to the extent
practical.” (pp. 17–18)
“Mitigation” is not the same as protection, especially as precipitation intensity increases and
systems fail under real-world conditions.
6. Infrastructure Burdens Are Shifted Forward – Likely to TAXPAYERS
The AUAR anticipates new trunk water and sewer lines, electrical substations, and roadway
improvements (pp. 11–12), without binding financial assurances protecting taxpayers.
7. Annexation Removes Local Control PERMANENTLY
The AUAR confirms: “The study area is outside the city of Monticello and would require the
city to annex land from the Township.” (pp. 30–31)
Once annexed, township residents permanently lose land-use authority, despite bearing many
of the long-term impacts.
8. Few Permanent Jobs, Poor Land-Use Efficiency
While not quantified in the AUAR, data centers are widely known to generate very few
permanent jobs relative to land consumed. The AUAR offers no job minimums, local hiring
requirements, or wage standards.
This stands in contrast to other light industrial uses contemplated in Scenario 2.
9. What about when the data center fails?
Once the data center project is abandoned; who is left with the responsibility to dispose of
everything? This burden is placed on the city. When the AI boom collapses we will be left
with the clean up. When the health issues increase the community will be damaged not the
data center.
10. Health risks
Are there things put in place for the data center to fund an increase in demand to the clinics
and hospital from the harm caused. The noise, light and water pollution poses health risks.
With cuts happening to medical and insurance companies leaving minnesota/wright county.
We can’t afford the future damage these data centers will cause. The studies of damage caused
in other places are just starting to come to the surface. The city is wanting to jump into this
when so much is still unknown.
11. The Ideals for Monticello
We want our city to grow. This decreases this because it takes land options away. Increases
pollution and has health risks. No one wants to live near these. We want to increase
opportunities for our community. This takes this away. There has been talk about how the
community wants more walk paths and parks. The city has been working to increase this.
Putting a data center in that will make the environment outside unhealthy and unappealing is
not the goal the city has been telling the community for years. This goes against what the city
has put resources to for many years.
Conclusion
For these significant reasons, I urge the City of Monticello to REJECT this project that would
alter the identity of our community forever.
Respectfully submitted,
Elena Patterson
Monticello resident
From:K. W
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Public Comment on the Draft Monticello Industrial AUAR
Date:Thursday, December 18, 2025 2:30:21 PM
To the Mayor, City Council, Planning Commission, and Staff,
I am submitting this public comment to formally express my opposition to the Draft
Monticello Industrial AUAR as it relates to Scenario 1, which explicitly evaluates a large-
scale data center / technology campus within the Monticello Orderly Annexation Area.
While the AUAR is described as a “planning tool,” its adoption carries lasting
consequences that materially shape future development approvals. Based on the
City’s own document, the risks, uncertainties, and long-term burdens of this
proposal outweigh any speculative benefits.
1. The AUAR Pre-Approves a Massive Worst-Case Development
The AUAR evaluates a “worst-case” development scenario of up to 3,000,000 square feet
of technology or data center uses across 550 acres (pp. 7–8).
“The intent of the AUAR is to recognize the worst-case potential impacts and identify
mitigation measures that may be taken to compensate for those impacts.” (p. 7)
This is not theoretical. Once adopted, this AUAR becomes the environmental ceiling
for future projects, allowing subsequent approvals to rely on this document without
re-opening full environmental review. Community opposition at later stages becomes
functionally limited.
2. Data Centers Are Acknowledged as a Unique and High-Burden Use
The City’s own 2040 Comprehensive Plan language, quoted directly in the AUAR,
acknowledges that data centers are fundamentally different from other industrial uses:
“The City’s 2040 Plan recognizes data centers as a singularly unique land use due to size
and scope.” (p. 25)
“Data center uses shall demonstrate convincingly that its burden on municipal services,
infrastructure, or fiscal condition is completely mitigated…” (p. 26)
The AUAR does not demonstrate this convincingly. Instead, it defers critical
determinations to future permits, future studies, and future mitigation AFTER the
AUAR is adopted.
3. Water Demand Is Significant and Uncapped
“Scenario 1 would require significantly lower operational traffic and potentially higher
water/wastewater demands compared to Scenario 2.” (p. 12)
Scenario 1 anticipates heavy groundwater use; Potential Rapid Infiltration Basin (RIB)
systems; Future water appropriation permit amendments (p. 21–22)
Yet these permits are not secured, and the long-term sustainability of groundwater withdrawal is
modeled - not guaranteed.
The AUAR itself acknowledges increasing climate stress:
“There is a projected 2.6% to 13.8% increase in 100-year storm intensity by 2035 and a
projected 5.2% to 26.9% increase by 2060.” (p. 12)
Approving a water-intensive land use under these conditions is fiscally and
environmentally irresponsible.
4. Permanent Loss of Farmland of Statewide Importance
“77 percent of the study area is considered farmland of statewide importance.” (p. 23)
“Cropland: 444 acres existing → 0 acres proposed.” (Table 3, p. 18)
This loss is irreversible. No meaningful farmland preservation strategy is included,
only replacement landscaping and engineered stormwater features.
5. Wetlands and Natural Systems Are Reduced
The AUAR documents a reduction in wetlands under Scenario 1 and relies heavily on
mitigation and engineered infrastructure:
“…preservation of wetlands or woodlands as required by ordinance and/or to the extent
practical.” (pp. 17–18)
“Mitigation” is not the same as protection, especially as precipitation intensity
increases and systems fail under real-world conditions.
6. Infrastructure Burdens Are Shifted Forward – Likely to TAXPAYERS
The AUAR anticipates new trunk water and sewer lines, electrical substations, and roadway
improvements (pp. 11–12), without binding financial assurances protecting taxpayers.
Many residents rely on fuel assistance to help pay their bills in the winter. The
increased cost will outweigh the help fuel assistance can give. How are we going to
prevent the increase to the residents?
7. Annexation Removes Local Control PERMANENTLY
The AUAR confirms: “The study area is outside the city of Monticello and would require the
city to annex land from the Township.” (pp. 30–31)
Once annexed, township residents permanently lose land-use authority, despite bearing
many of the long-term impacts.
8. Few Permanent Jobs, Poor Land-Use Efficiency
While not quantified in the AUAR, data centers are widely known to generate very few
permanent jobs relative to land consumed. The AUAR offers no job minimums, local hiring
requirements, or wage standards.
This stands in contrast to other light industrial uses contemplated in Scenario 2.
9. What about when the data center fails?
Once the data center project is abandoned; who is left with the responsibility to dispose of
everything? This burden is placed on the city. When the AI boom collapses we will be left
with the clean up. When the health issues increase the community will be damaged not the
data center. Data centers have a lifespan of 10-15 years. If it doesn't fail before then. There
is nothing stating that the center will be the one paying for the clean up. Nothing forcing
them to hold money in escrow or anything close to it.
10. Health risks
Are there things put in place for the data center to fund an increase in demand to the clinics
and hospital from the harm caused. The noise, light and water pollution poses health risks.
With cuts happening to medical and insurance companies leaving minnesota/wright county.
We can’t afford the future damage these data centers will cause. The studies of damage
caused in other places are just starting to come to the surface. The city is wanting to jump
into this when so much is still unknown.
11. The ideals of our city
We want our city to grow. This decreases this because it takes land options away.
Increases pollution and has health risks. No one wants to live near these. We want to
increase opportunities for our community. This takes this away. There has been talk about
how the community wants more walk paths and parks. The city has been working to
increase this. Putting a data center in that will make the environment outside unhealthy and
unappealing is not the goal the city has been telling the community for years. This goes
against what the city has put resources to for many years.
Conclusion
For these significant reasons, I urge the City of Monticello to REJECT this project that
would alter the identity of our community forever.
Respectfully submitted,
Ty Weiss
Monticello Resident
12/18/2025
From:Scott Zettervall
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Monticello Industrial AUAR - Scott"s Comments, Questions and Recommendation
Date:Thursday, December 18, 2025 2:33:58 PM
See below for my public comments for the draft Monticello Industrial Alternative
Urban Areawide Review (AUAR).
https://monticellomn.gov/DocumentCenter/View/8720/Monticello-Draft-AUAR-with-
Appendices-PDF?bidId=
RE: Page.11 Scenario 1
"The non-contact cooling wastewater generated under Scenario 1 is proposed to be
discharged into the groundwater via a Rapid Infiltration Basin (RIB) system."
I understand non-contact cooling wastewater can contain PFAS (per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances). PFAS are persistent in the environment and human
body, leading to potential health risks, including cancer and liver damage. Increased
scrutiny on PFAS has led to stricter regulations and monitoring, especially for
industrial discharges.
Related Questions:
1. What Management Strategies can be implemented to monitor and measure for
PFAS and protect our groundwater?
2. What are the potential impacts?
3. How much PFAS is expected to be discharged?
RE: Page.47 "Only domestic wastewater should be considered in an AUAR—
industrial wastewater would be coming from industrial uses that are excluded
from review through an AUAR process"
Related Questions:
1. Since industrial wastewater is not considered in an AUAR, Is the AUAR process
sufficient for this Industrial use?
RE: Page.64 Scenario 1 "maximum peak day water demand of up to 3-3.5
million gallons per day (MGD) for non-contact cooling water use during the
months of April through October at full build out." and "water demand could be
as high as 250 – 300 million gallons per year"
Related Recommendation:
1. I recommend the City to update the related Water Supply Fee schedules to
have progressive tiers for this water usage to ensure this development covers
infrastructure maintenance costs and is incentivised to minimize water
consumption.
Thank you,
Scott Zettervall
From:Mary Zierke
To:Angela Schumann
Subject:Data center
Date:Thursday, December 18, 2025 1:11:16 PM
Sent from my iPhone
Please STOP data centers‼Thank You
1
Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy's
Comments on the Monticello Industrial
Draft Alternative Urban Areawide Review
December 17, 2025
INTRODUCTION
Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy (MCEA) respectfully submits
the following comments on its own behalf and on behalf of thousands of supporters
across the state, including in the City of Monticello. MCEA is a nonprofit with
expertise in environmental law, policy, and science. For over 50 years, we have
worked in the courts, at the legislature, and with public agencies to enact, strengthen,
and enforce smart environmental law. Our mission includes working with
communities to protect Minnesota's environment, its natural resources, and the health
of its people.
The City's Draft AUAR reviews proposals for a 550-acre development with two
scenarios: a 3,000,000 square foot “technology park” (Scenario 1) and a 5,000,000
square foot “light industrial” development (Scenario 2).1 Unlike other recent data
center AUARs, the City acknowledges that Scenario 1 “could include a data center
campus.”2 The City has even created a “Data Center PUD Zoning Ordinance” for this
type of development.3
Despite this acknowledgment, the Draft AUAR fails to base its environmental
review in the operational or design details of an actual data center proposal. This
1 City of Monticello, Draft Alternative Urban Areawide Review 7-8 (Nov. 2025)
("AUAR").
2 AUAR at 7.
3 AUAR at 27.
2
generic approach violates Minnesota law. Under the Minnesota Environmental Policy
Act (MEPA), AUAR review of a “large specific project” must be based on clear and
thorough project descriptions.4 Without this grounding, the AUAR cannot adequately
study a hyperscale data center's likely environmental impacts. Among its gaps, the
AUAR does not identify the number, size, and location of backup generators needed
for this project, even though backup generators at data centers can emit significant air
pollution.5 The AUAR fails to calculate climate impacts based on a data center’s
electricity demand, instead citing the far lower needs of a generic light industrial
development.6 The AUAR omits information about how the project could impact
nearby wells, despite recognizing that wells could be affected.7
Minnesota law requires more. AUARs must study a project's “direct, indirect,
and cumulative potential effects” on the environment at “a level of analysis
comparable to that of an EIS,” the highest tier of environmental review in Minnesota.8
Because the Monticello project's design details remain undefined, many of its potential
impacts on groundwater, light pollution, air quality, and more are not analyzed at all.
Other likely impacts are deferred to studies that will be completed
“as site development progresses.”9
4 Minn. R. 4410.3610, subp. 5a(B).
5 See Karen Weise & Cade Metz, At Amazon's Biggest Data Center, Everything Is
Supersized for A.I., N.Y. Times (June 24, 2025).
6 AUAR at 85.
7 AUAR at 44.
8 Minn. R. 4410.3610, subp. 4.
9 AUAR at 88.
3
MEPA's mandate to analyze a project's “direct, indirect, and cumulative”
impacts cannot be satisfied with non-binding commitments to do more, later.10 The
City must amend its draft AUAR to include a thorough analysis of this project's
potential environmental impacts, based on a thorough description of the large specific
project being considered. Additionally, MCEA recommends that environmental
review for hyperscale data centers may be best conducted by a different Responsible
Governmental Unit (RGU). Unlike most local projects, hyperscale data centers can
directly threaten the electricity grid and groundwater aquifers. These are inherently
regional challenges, which a state body like the Department of Natural Resources, or
the Environmental Quality Board itself, is best equipped to study.
I. The AUAR fails to adequately describe the Project, precluding
meaningful environmental review
The applicable rules and guidance require the City to provide a thorough
description of the project it is reviewing. The City elected to use an AUAR to study “a
large specific project.”11 Per MEPA regulations, any AUAR reviewing a large specific
project must undergo a scoping process that requires the City to describe the project
at a level “comparable to that of a scoping EAW.”12
The Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (“EQB”) instructs that this
description should provide a “brief summary” of the project, followed by a “complete
description” focused on all “aspects of the project that may directly or indirectly
10 Minn. R. 4410.3610, subp. 4; cf. Greater Yellowstone Coal. v. Lewis, 628 F.3d 1143,
1158 (9th Cir. 2010), as amended (Jan. 25, 2011).
11 See City of Monticello, Final Order for the Preparation of an Alternative Urban
Areawide Review for Monticello Industrial (invoking Minn. R. 4410.3610, subp. 5a).
12 Minn. R. 4410.2610, subp. 5a(B).
4
manipulate, alter or impact the physical or natural environment.”13 The description
should contemplate the project's “construction and operational activities,” “project
components and structures,” the “location and relationships of project components,”
and “associated infrastructure” required to serve the facility.14 The EQB stresses that
project descriptions are the “most important item” of environmental review.15 The key
principle is that “clear, complete and detailed project descriptions are essential to
understanding the potential for environmental effects.”16
The AUAR's project description falls far short of this bar. The City describes
Scenario 1 as a technology park that “could include a data center, research and design
facilities, technology, laboratories or research park uses,” with “5-10 principal
buildings, approximately 200,000-400,000 square feet per building.”17 This description
does not provide the operational and design details necessary for meaningful
environmental review. A data center's environmental impacts are tied to precise
questions, such as how the project will be cooled, where it will source electricity, and
what indirect infrastructural changes are needed to accommodate the facility's
demands. Because the AUAR discusses these questions generically, without
grounding in the details of the “large specific project” it purports to review, the City
cannot adequately study the project's potential impacts.
II. The AUAR fails to adequately describe the Project's impact on air
quality
13 Minn. Envtl. Quality Bd., EAW Guidelines: Preparing Environmental Assessment
Worksheets 11 (2013) ("EAW Guidance") (emphasis added).
14 Id.
15 Id.
16 Id.
17 AUAR at 7.
5
Environmental review of a hyperscale data center must account for how the
facility plans to generate on-site power. Industrial facilities construct generators to
provide electricity when the facilities are disconnected from the grid. Frequently,
these generators are fracked gas or diesel-powered turbines which emit nitrogen
oxides, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and other pollutants that are hazardous
to human health.18
Data center generators can pose a unique threat to air quality due to the
computing facilities' enormous demand for power. A single hyperscale data center
can easily require more electricity than the entire City of St. Cloud.19 Powering a
facility like this can require dozens of combustion turbines.20 Data centers can be
tempted to rely on these on-site turbines, instead of the grid, when “the data
processing center's voracious appetite for energy has outpaced electric utilities' ability
to serve it.”21 In Memphis, thirty-five gas turbines have been used as the main source
of power for a new hyperscale data center.22 These turbines are reportedly emitting
more nitrogen oxides than the power plant and oil refinery located next door.23
The AUAR acknowledges that data center developments could require backup
generators.24 It does not, however, analyze those generators' air pollution. The reason
18 See U.S. Env't Prot. Agency, Learn About Impacts of Diesel Exhaust and the Diesel
Emissions Reduction Act (DERA), https://www.epa.gov/dera/learn-about-impacts-
diesel-exhaust-and-diesel-emissions-reduction-act-dera.
19 See Walker Orenstein, Mega Data Centers Are Coming to Minnesota. Their Power
Needs Are Staggering., Star Trib. (Jan. 10, 2025).
20 See Ariel Wittenberg, 'How Come I Can't Breathe?': Musk's Data Company Draws a
Backlash in Memphis, Politico (May 6, 2025).
21 Id.
22 Id.
23 Id.
24 AUAR at 82.
6
given is that “if any potential emission generation (e.g., from generators) from future
development is above the threshold for an air quality permit/environmental review,
then that specific project would be subject to additional environmental review beyond
what is evaluated in this AUAR.”25 However, this explanation ignores the very real
possibility that backup generators could emit enough air pollution to require
individual environmental review, meaning that an AUAR would be inappropriate
and barred by law. Recent reporting suggests that a data center in Memphis is emitting
nitrogen oxides at a rate of “1,200 to 2,000 tons a year.”26 That is five to eight times
higher than the rate that would trigger a mandatory EAW in Minnesota.27
The AUAR contains no information about the number, size, and location of the
generators, stating only that “[d]etails pertaining to the number, size, and location are
unknown at this time.”28 This omission precludes the AUAR from evaluating the
“direct, indirect, and cumulative potential effects” of the proposed project.29
III. The AUAR fails to adequately describe the Project's noise and light
pollution
Environmental review of data centers must account for potential noise and
light impacts associated with these enormous facilities. Hyperscale data centers house
servers and cooling facilities that create a constant “hum” or “screech.”30 That noise
persists day and night. It can travel for miles. Long-term exposure to this noise
25 AUAR at 82.
26 See Ariel Wittenberg, 'How Come I Can't Breathe?': Musk's Data Company Draws a
Backlash in Memphis, Politico (May 6, 2025).
27 See Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 15(A).
28 AUAR at 73.
29 Minn. R. 4410.3610, subps. 4, 5(B); see also Minn. R. 4410.2500; Minn. Stat. §
116D.04, Subd. 4a.
30 Steven Gonzalez Monserrate, The Staggering Ecological Impacts of Computation and
the Cloud, The MIT Press Reader (Feb. 14, 2022).
7
pollution can result in hearing loss, stress, insomnia, and a significantly decreased
quality of life.31
The AUAR acknowledges that chiller equipment at “a typical data center could
range from around 65 dB(A) up to around 80 dB(A) at a distance of approximately 30
feet” and that “given the quantity of chillers needed for a typical data center building,
these noise levels would be higher.”32 The AUAR further notes the possibility of “low
frequency noise” from operational equipment.33 Despite these acknowledgments, the
City does not actually model the noise impacts of the proposed facility. Instead, the
AUAR states that “[a]s site development progresses, developers would be responsible
for assessing whether operational noise exceeds established noise standards which
may require studies of ambient and proposed noise conditions and then mitigation
for compliance.”34
This is insufficient. Determining real-world environmental impacts, then
committing to mitigation measures, are key components of environmental review.
These steps need to happen in the AUAR. By deferring this analysis to future
developers, the City's AUAR fails to “provide for a level of analysis comparable to
that of an EIS.”35
Additionally, the City's evaluation of light pollution is inadequate. Night
lighting at large industrial facilities can frustrate neighbors and contribute to
31 Id.
32 AUAR at 87.
33 AUAR at 87.
34 AUAR at 88.
35 Minn. R. 4410.3610, subp. 4.
8
“skyglow” that obscures the night sky.36 Data center lighting can be “easily seen for
miles,” glowing “at night like a giant city of lights.”37
EQB guidance states that AUARs should analyze “any impacts” on scenic
views and vistas in the study area, including “both direct physical impacts and
impacts on visual quality or integrity.”38 If “any non-routine visual impacts would
occur” they should be discussed “along with appropriate mitigation.”39
Again, the AUAR plainly fails to meet this requirement. The AUAR notes that
“[f]uture development would conform with the city ordinances” and that “[g]uidance
from the USFWS to minimize blue light, uplight, and backlight will be adhered to the
extent practicable.”40 These short and generic claims fail to study the effects of lighting
a three million square foot technology park. To properly evaluate the facility's “impact
on visual quality,” along with “appropriate mitigation,” the AUAR must detail how
the data center project will be lit.41 As presently drafted, that study is missing.
IV. The AUAR fails to adequately describe the Project's water impacts
Thorough environmental review of a hyperscale data center must account for
the facility's water impacts. Data centers can demand enormous amounts of water to
cool their servers and other computing hardware.42 In Farmington, a proposed data
36 See National Geographic Society, Light Pollution,
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/light-pollution/.
37 Grace Mamon, Data Centers Are Changing the Landscape. Here's How They May Affect
Rural Virginia, Cardinal News (Mar. 12, 2025).
38 Minn. Env't Quality Bd., Recommended Content and Format Alternative Urban
Areawide Review Documents 5 (Sept. 2008) ("AUAR Guidance").
39 Id.
40 AUAR at 81-82.
41 AUAR Guidance at 5.
42 Rasheed Ahmad, Water Works: Engineers Often Need a Lot of Water to Keep Data
Centers Cool, American Society of Civil Engineers (Mar. 4, 2024).
9
center would more than double the city's current water use.43 This intensive water
demand may be at odds with the groundwater sustainability standard in state law,
which requires groundwater use to be sustainable to supply current needs and the
needs of future generations.44
Evaluating those water demands is a key part of environmental review. Among
other obligations, an AUAR must describe “quantity, duration, use, and purpose of
the water use.”45 The EQB stresses that where “it is uncertain whether water resources
will be impacted depending on the exact design of future development, the AUAR
should cover the possible impacts through a 'worst case scenario' or else prevent
impacts through the provisions of the mitigation plan.”46 Crucially, the AUAR must
“describe environmental effects from water appropriation, including an assessment
of the water resources available for appropriation.”47
The Monticello AUAR presents significant water appropriation concerns that
are not adequately addressed. The AUAR estimates that Scenario 1 could require a
peak day water demand of up to 3-3.5 million gallons per day for non-contact cooling
water use, with an estimated yearly water demand of 250-300 million gallons per
43 Letter from Melissa Collins, Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist,
Department of Natural Resources, to Tony Wippler, Planning Manager, City of
Farmington (Oct. 22, 2024), on file at MCEA.
44 Minn. Stat. § 103G.287, subd. 1(b); see also Kirsti Marohn, Water-Guzzling Data
Centers Spark Worries for Minnesota's Groundwater, MPR News (Feb. 11, 2025).
45 AUAR at 63; see Minn. Env't Quality Bd., Environmental Assessment Worksheet Form
(Dec. 2022); see also Minn. R. 4410.3610, subp. 4 (AUAR); Minn. R. 4410.2300(H)
(EIS).
46 AUAR Guidance at 3.
47 Id.
10
year.48 The City of Monticello currently has only 149 million gallons per year of
available water appropriations.49
Because the project’s water demand would exceed the City’s available
appropriation, part of the AUAR’s role is to include an “assessment of the water
resources available for appropriation.”50 Here, the AUAR states that “[t]he city has
completed a preliminary aquifer analysis.”51 The City reports that this analysis “found
that there appears to be limited draw down impact to adjacent wells.”52 But that is all.
The AUAR contains none of the study details or results.
MEPA requires environmental review documents to explain their analyses, so
that public and governmental officials have useful information before decisions are
made.53 To “describe environmental effects from water appropriation” of 250 – 300
million gallons per year from the Quaternary Buried Artesian aquifer, the revised
AUAR must share the actual analysis, not merely characterize impacts as “limited.”54
Furthermore, the AUAR errs by framing “up to 75 MGY” of water processed
through a Rapid Infiltration Basin (“RIB”) system as a credit to subtract from the
project’s water appropriation.55 The City cites no authority behind this accounting
48 AUAR at 64.
49 AUAR at 66.
50 AUAR Guidance at 3.
51 AUAR at 64.
52 AUAR at 44.
53 Minn. R. 4410.3610, subp. 4; Greater Yellowstone Coal. v. Lewis, 628 F.3d 1143, 1158
(9th Cir. 2010), as amended (Jan. 25, 2011) (environmental review is a "look before
you leap" process, designed to ensure that agencies “consider every significant
aspect of the environmental impact of a proposed action" before that action is
approved”).
54 AUAR Guidance at 3, AUAR at 44.
55 AUAR at 65 (Table 17).
11
exercise. The effort is also foreclosed by state law: Minn. Stat. § 103G.005 defines
appropriation as the "withdrawal, removal, or transfer of water from its source
regardless of how the water is used.”56 Plans to recharge that aquifer using an RIB
system, a process that the AUAR concedes will take decades, and may not even end
up in the same aquifer as where the city draws from, are not an allowance to claim
“minus 75” on a data center’s estimated millions of gallons per year of water
appropriations.57 The City must revise its AUAR to reflect that fact.
V. The AUAR does not adequately account for the Project's cumulative
potential effects
MEPA requires project proposers to assess a project's cumulative potential
effects.58 “Cumulative potential effects” is defined in the Minnesota Rules to mean
“the effect on the environment that results from the incremental effects of a project in
addition to other projects in the environmentally relevant area that might reasonably
be expected to affect the same environmental resources.”59 These “other projects”
include existing facilities that are continuing to impact the environment and people's
health. This analysis is vital to ensuring an adequate AUAR.
Here, the City has not conducted an adequate cumulative potential effects
analysis. The AUAR's cumulative effects section identifies only one reasonably
foreseeable future project: the Haven Ridge West housing development
approximately 0.5 miles east of the study area.60 The AUAR then offers conclusory
56 Minn. Stat. § 103G.005, Subd. 4.
57
58 Minn. Env't Quality Bd., Environmental Assessment Worksheet Form (Dec. 2022); see
also Minn. R. 4410.3610, subp. 4 (AUAR); Minn. R. 4410.2300(H) (EIS).
59 Minn. R. 4410.0200, subp. 11a.
60 AUAR at 98.
12
claims that adverse cumulative impacts “will be addressed via the regulatory
permitting and approval processes and will be individually mitigated to ensure
minimal cumulative impacts occur.”61
Critically, the AUAR fails to assess the cumulative impacts of this project in
combination with other hyperscale data centers proposed or under development
across Minnesota. The Star Tribune reported recently that “with at least 10 [hyperscale
data centers planned], these Big Tech projects could consume as much electricity as
every home in Minnesota.”62 That enormous cumulative demand can strain energy
grids, shift costs to consumers, and necessitate dirty sources of power that increase
greenhouse gas emissions while threatening progress on Minnesota's statutory
commitment to clean energy.63
MEPA requires more. To fully discharge its duty to assess cumulative potential
effects, the City must, at a minimum, conduct an analysis that includes an
understanding of environmental impacts not just from this project but also from other
existing sources and activities.64 As the Minnesota Supreme Court has explained, the
purpose of this inquiry is to “determine whether the project, which may not
individually have the potential to cause significant environmental effects, could have
61 AUAR at 98.
62 Walker Orenstein, Mega Data Centers Are Coming to Minnesota. Their Power Needs
Are Staggering., Star Trib. (Jan. 10, 2025).
63 See Ellen Thomas, Utilities Want to Power Big Tech's AI Ambitions with Natural Gas.
These Are the Data Centers They're Betting On, Business Insider (Feb. 13, 2025); Eliza
Martin & Ari Peskoe, Extracting Profits from the Public: How Utility Ratepayers Are
Paying for Big Tech's Power, Harvard Law School Environmental and Energy Law
Program (Mar. 2025).
64 Citizens Advocating Responsible Dev. v. Kandiyohi Cty. Bd. of Comm'rs, 713 N.W.2d
817, 829 (Minn. 2006).
13
a significant effect when other local projects already in existence or planned for the
future are considered.”65
Unless the City revises the AUAR to include the required cumulative potential
effects analysis, including the cumulative impacts of multiple data centers on
Minnesota's electrical grid and water resources, the City cannot make a legally sound
decision on the adequacy of the AUAR and on the Project itself.
VI. The AUAR's greenhouse gas emissions analysis improperly ignores
data center electricity consumption.
Greenhouse gas emissions associated with generating electricity are a critical
component of a data center's carbon footprint. To study those impacts, the
Environmental Quality Board's guidance is clear: greenhouse gas emissions must
include “Scope 2” emissions, including “emissions associated most often with the
offsite generation of purchased electricity,” which are determined through the
formula of “purchased electricity (MWh) * Emission Factor * GWP.”66
Here, the AUAR based its estimated Scope 2 emissions for the data center
scenario using electricity consumption of a “typical light industrial user.”67 This is
inadequate. Data center proposals in Minnesota would reportedly require 100 to 500
megawatts of power,68 rivaling the electricity consumption of entire metropolitan
cities. They are not typical light industrial developments.
65 Id.
66 Minn. Envtl. Quality Bd., Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Guidance:
Developing a Carbon Footprint and Incorporating Climate Adaptation and Resilience 13
(July 2023) ("EQB GHG Guidance").
67 AUAR at 85, footnote 45.
68 See Walker Orenstein, Mega Data Centers Are Coming to Minnesota. Their Power
Needs Are Staggering., Star Trib. (Jan. 10, 2025).
14
The City has acknowledged that the “intent of the AUAR is to recognize the
worst-case potential impacts and identify mitigation measures that may be taken to
compensate for those impacts.“69 To avoid grossly understating a data center’s climate
impact, the revised AUAR must calculate greenhouse gas emissions using realistic
electricity consumption estimates.
VII. The AUAR's mitigation plan is inadequate
The AUAR rules require that each AUAR include a mitigation plan that details
how any potential impacts to the environment will be avoided, minimized, or
mitigated. Mitigation measures must go beyond “vague statements of good
intentions.”70 For AUARs in particular, EQB has emphasized that “the plan for
mitigation called for is perhaps the key part of the entire substitute review process” in
an AUAR.71 The agency instructs that it “must be understood that the mitigation plan
is a commitment by the [Responsible Governmental Unit] to prevent potentially
significant impacts from occurring from specific projects. It is more than just a list of
ways to reduce impacts—it must include information about how the mitigation will
be applied and assurance that it will.”72
The mitigation measures in the draft AUAR are inadequate for two key reasons.
First, as described above, the design of the proposed project has not yet been
established, so there is no way to know how well the mitigation measures listed in the
draft AUAR accomplish their stated purpose. And second, the mitigation measures
69 AUAR at 7.
70 Citizens Advocating Responsible Development, 713 N.W.2d at 835.
71 See Minn. Envtl. Quality Bd., Statement of Need & Reasonableness, Proposed
Amendments to Minn. R. parts 4410.0200–.7800 32 (1988).
72 AUAR Guidance at 6.
15
included in the AUAR are not described or analyzed sufficiently to give the public or
government officials grounds to understand and comment on this section of the
AUAR.
For example, the mitigation plan states that “[a]s site development progresses,
developers would be responsible for assessing whether operational noise exceeds
established noise standards.”73 This is not a mitigation plan. Rather than identifying
the actual noise levels associated with operation of the proposed data center, how that
noise will impact nearby residents, and what specific, targeted and certain measures
will be used to mitigate those impacts, the City defers responsibility to future
developers.
Further, several mitigation ideas are vague and noncommittal. The Draft
AUAR reports that “potential design strategies and sustainability measures,” namely
native vegetation and habitat, urban tree planting, and energy efficient appliances, are
“under consideration.”74 But the document omits any description of how these
potential ideas would “prevent potentially significant impacts from occurring from
specific projects.”75
The draft mitigation plan must be revised to include “information about how
the mitigation will be applied and assurance that it will.”76
VIII. Environmental review of hyperscale data centers should be
conducted by a regional or statewide governmental entity
73AUAR at 88.
74 AUAR at 106.
75 AUAR Guidance at 6.
76 See Minn. Envtl. Quality Bd., Statement of Need & Reasonableness, Proposed
Amendments to Minn. R. parts 4410.0200–.7800 32 (1988).
16
If the proposed project is a hyperscale data center, it would join a rapid
statewide rollout of these facilities. This wave of new, intensive developments will
likely strain the regional electricity grid, threatening service reliability, ratepayer
costs, and utilities' ability to achieve state climate and energy targets.77 The rollout will
also introduce enormous competition for limited water supplies, at a time when
increasing competition for water is posing problems for drinking wells and
Minnesota's streams, lakes, and rivers.78
These are inherently regional challenges. At the local level, it may be impossible
to ask a city to conduct environmental review of a project so large it could require new
energy infrastructure, drive up electricity rates, strain city water appropriations, cause
significant drawdown to regionally significant aquifers, or have other regional
impacts.
Going forward, MCEA strongly recommends that the environmental review of
hyperscale data centers be conducted by regional or state RGUs that are best equipped
to review data centers' cross-jurisdictional effects.
CONCLUSION
77 See Eliza Martin & Ari Peskoe, Extracting Profits from the Public: How Utility
Ratepayers Are Paying for Big Tech's Power, Harvard Law School Environmental and
Energy Law Program (Mar. 2025).
78See Minn. Dep't. of Nat. Res, Minnesota Water Conservation Report 6 (2020); Minn.
Dep't. of Nat. Res., Well Interference Resolution Process,
https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters/watermgmt_section/appropriations/interfer
ence.html.
17
For the above reasons, the draft AUAR must be revised to contain significant
additional review of this project's potential environmental impacts, based on a “clear,
complete and detailed” description of what the large specific project is.79
Sincerely,
s/ Evan Mulholland
Evan Mulholland
Healthy Communities Program Director
Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy
1919 University Ave W, Ste. 515
Saint Paul, MN 55104
s/ Luke Norquist
Luke Norquist
Attorney
Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy
1919 University Ave W, Ste. 515
Saint Paul, MN 55104
79 EAW Guidance at 11.
Appendix H:
Objection
Period
Comments
and
Responses
Monticello Industrial Final AUAR - Objection Period
Comment Responses
January 22, 2026
The 10-day objection period for state agencies to file an objection to the Monticello Industrial Final
Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) ended on January 21, 2026. During that time, the city of
Monticello, as the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU), received no objections from state agencies.
The RGU also distributed a press release requesting further public comment during the objection period.
While no public comments were received, the RGU did receive comments from the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA) and the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), see Attachment H.
MPCA’s comment letter states that if a project moves forward an Antidegradation Assessment must be
completed in accordance with Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). A Section 401 Water Quality
Certification (WQC) from the MPCA (which would include an Antidegradation Assessment) and a
corresponding Section 404 Clean Water Act permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) are
both included in Table 6: Anticipated Permits and Approvals in the Final AUAR. If the developer proposes
to impact a Water of the United States, they will obtain any required permit under Section 404 of the
CWA and a Section 401 WQC from MPCA, if applicable.
SHPO’s comment letter requests more information regarding field conditions that led to the omission of
142 acres of the study area in a Phase I Archaeological Survey. Further, they recommended an additional
survey be conducted for the 142-acre portion of the study area. SHPO also stated they could not concur
with the determination of the isolated find spots as “not eligible for listing” in the National Register of
Historic Places (NHRP). SHPO requested a new, not redacted version of the report be uploaded to the
Office of the State Archaeologist (OSA) Portal. The developer will coordinate with SHPO to ensure any
area proposed for development is surveyed prior to construction if that area is developed. The developer
will also ensure that any impacts to the isolated find spots are considered during project planning and
coordinate with SHPO to determine the eligibility of these sites. The developer and archeological
consultant will provide OSA with an unredacted version of all archaeological surveys conducted in the
study area. Item 15 and the Mitigation Plan in the Final AUAR have been updated to incorporate this
information and next steps.
January 13, 2026
VIA EMAIL
Angela Schumann
City of Monticello
505 Walnut Street
Monticello, Minnesota 55362
angela.schumann@monticellomn.gov
RE: Monticello Industrial – Draft Alternative Urban Areawide Review
Dear Angela Schumann:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Alternative Urban Areawide Review
(DAUAR) for the Monticello Industrial project (Project) located in Wright County, Minnesota. The Project
consists of two scenarios. Scenario 1 includes multiple buildings for a total of up to 3,000,000 square
feet of a proposed technology park/campus development (see Figure 3). Scenario 1 could include a data
center, research and design facilities, technology, laboratories or research park uses. These types of uses
are expected to also include the need to build additional electrical substations, transmission lines and
backup generators. For the purposes of impact evaluation, this scenario assumes a data center campus,
with 5 to 10 principal buildings, approximately 200,000 to 400,000 square feet per building with a few
ancillary support buildings. Scenario 1 is expected to follow similar life cycle of other typical light
industrial development. With most technology park campuses, including data centers, the exterior shell
of the buildings are anticipated to be used over many decades, while the internal components are
upgraded periodically as technology advances. Scenario 2 includes multiple buildings for a total of up to
5,000,000 square feet of light industrial land use based on the City of Monticello’s adopted land use plan
(see Figure 4). Scenario 2 could include process and production manufacturing which uses moderate
amounts of partially processed materials, warehousing and distribution, machine shops, computer
technology including office and research and development facilities (but not including data centers as a
singular principal use), professional and corporate offices and industrial engineering facilities. For the
purposes of impact evaluation, this scenario assumes a light industrial park type development that could
include 5 to 20 buildings that range from approximately 20,000-1 million square feet. Generally, light
industrial. Regarding matters for which the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has regulatory
responsibility and other interests, the MPCA staff has the following comments for your consideration.
401 Certification
•The wetland replacement ratio remains unclear. If the project moves forward, the
Antidegradation Assessment must be completed.
•All surface waters are regulated by the MPCA and defined by Minn. Stat. § 115.01, subd. 22.
We appreciate the opportunity to review this Project. Please be aware that this letter does not
constitute approval by the MPCA of any or all elements of the Project for the purpose of pending or
future permit actions by the MPCA. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the Project proposer to secure
Angela Schumann
Page 2
January 13, 2026
any required permits and to comply with any requisite permit conditions. If you have any questions
concerning our review of this DAUAR, please contact me by email at chris.green@state.mn.us or by
telephone at 507-476-4258.
Sincerely,
Chris Green
This document has been electronically signed.
Chris Green, Project Manager
Environmental Review Unit
Resource Management and Assistance Division
CG:rs
Attachment
cc: Melinda Neville, MPCA
Christopher Lundeen, MPCA
Nicole Peterson, MPCA
Matthew Moon, MPCA
Jeffrey Hedman, MPCA
Colin Boysen, MPCA
Lauren Dickerson, MPCA
Deepa deAlwis, MPCA
David Sahli, MPCA
Julie Henderson, MPCA
Katrina Hapka, MPCA
MINNESOTA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
50 Sherburne Avenue ▪ Administration Building 203 ▪ Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 ▪ 651-201-3287
mn.gov/admin/shpo ▪ mnshpo@state.mn.us
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND SERVICE PROVIDER
January 21, 2026
Angela Schumann
Community Development Director
505 Walnut Street
Monticello, MN 55362
RE: Monticello Industrial AUAR
Monticello, Wright County
SHPO Number: 2026-0118
Dear Angela Schumann:
Thank you for providing this office with a copy of the Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR)
for the above-referenced project. According the AUAR, “Monticello Tech, LLC is proposing to develop the
study area from existing farmland to a technology campus or light industrial uses.”
We have reviewed the redacted report, Phase I Archaeological Survey for [REDACTED], Wright County,
Minnesota prepared by In Situ in April 2025 (submitted to the OSA portal on December 12, 2025) and have the
following comments:
• Please describe the field conditions at the time of survey that prevented survey for 122 acres of
the proposed project area in a revised report. This is a standard part of documenting the “work
summary” of field work.
• We understand that three (3) new archaeological sites were identified as a result of the survey,
sites 21WR0239, 21WR0240, and 21WR0241. In general, we recommend the excavation of radial
shovel tests, typically at 5-meter and 10-meter intervals around an artifact identified on the
surface to delineate the horizontal site limits. Lacking additional information on the potential
horizontal extent of these sites, we are not certain they represent isolated find spots and are
unable to agree that they are not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP). Therefore, at this time we consider these sites unevaluated for listing in the NRHP and
recommend that potential effects to these sites be considered during project planning.
• We recommend reviewing Part 2 of the Stone Tools of Minnesota, which is Chapter 6: Chipped
Stone Raw Materials to determine lithic raw materials. The Minnesota Historical Society also
maintains a comparative lithic collection that may be helpful.
• We recommend that an archaeological survey be completed for the additional 122 acres of land
within the project area that have not been surveyed.
Please note that we have returned the report to the archaeologists in the Office of the State Archaeologist’s
(OSA) Portal because it contains redactions. We understand that the project name was redacted by the
archaeologist’s client. We recommend that the archaeologists address the comments above and revise the
title and text of the report, so it is no longer redacted and resubmit it to the OSA Portal. Please note that
archaeological reports, because they contain archaeological site information, are non-public data and our
office does not release them to the public.
There are no properties listed in the National or State Registers of Historic Places, or within the Historic Sites
Network, located within or adjacent to the AUAR boundary. However, as noted in the AUAR Item 15, there are
three (3) previously inventoried properties located in the vicinity of the AUAR boundary. Two of these
properties are currently unevaluated for listing in the NRHP and one of them has been determined not eligible
for listing in the NRHP.
Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36 CFR § 800. If the proposed project is considered for federal financial
assistance, or requires a federal permit or license, then review and consultation with our office will need to be
initiated by the lead federal agency in order to define the federal undertaking, an appropriate area of potential
effects (APE) for the federal undertaking, as well as the necessary historic property identification and
evaluation efforts required for a federal review. Be advised that comments and recommendations provided by
our office for this review may differ from findings and determinations made by the federal agency as part of
review and consultation under Section 106.
Please contact Kelly Gragg-Johnson, Environmental Review Specialist, at kelly.graggjohnson@state.mn.us if
you have any questions regarding our comments.
Sincerely,
Amy Spong
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
Appendix I:
Adoption
Resolution
Monticello Industrial AUAR Schedule
TASK START END
City Council Meeting to Authorize Distribution to EQB
WSB submits Draft AUAR Order and Scoping Document to EQB
Draft AUAR Order and Scoping Document published in EQB Monitor
30-day public comment period 8/5/2025 9/4/2025
KH prepares Final AUAR Order and Scoping Document 9/4/2025 9/19/2025
City Reviews/KH revises Final AUAR Order and Scoping Document 9/19/2025 9/26/2025
KH revises 9/26/2025 10/3/2025
Submit AUAR Order and Scoping Document to City (1 week prior to mtg)
City adopts AUAR Order + Scoping Document at City Council meeting
WSB submits Final AUAR Order and Scoping Document to EQB
Final AUAR Order and Scoping Document published in EQB Monitor
120-day AUAR preparation process 10/13/2025 2/10/2026
City/Client reviews 2nd draft of Draft AUAR 9/24/2025 10/8/2025
KH revises Draft AUAR 10/8/2025 10/18/2025
City reviews/KH revises 3rd draft of Draft AUAR 10/18/2025 10/30/2025
Planning Commission Review of Draft AUAR (in PPT form & provide copy of Draft AUAR)
City Council Authorization to submit Draft AUAR to EQB (final draft shared at meeting)
WSB submits Draft AUAR to EQB
Draft AUAR published in EQB Monitor
30-day public comment period 11/18/2025 12/18/2025
Public Open House (est. date)
Joint session with PC and CC to collect AUAR comments
KH prepares Final AUAR and responses to comments 12/18/2025 12/22/2025
Meeting with city to discuss comments
City reviews Final AUAR (1 week)12/22/2025 12/29/2025
WSB submits Final AUAR to state agencies and EQB Monitor
10-business day Final AUAR objection period (state agencies and the Met Council)1/6/2026 1/21/2026
Submit Final AUAR to City
City adopts the Final AUAR at City Council meeting
WSB submits notice of adoption of Final AUAR to EQB and EQB distribution list
Notice of adoption of Final AUAR published in EQB Monitor
7/29/2025
8/5/2025
10/13/2025
12/22/2025
11/20/2025
12/15/2025
1/27/2026
2/3/2026
AUAR Order
7/28/2025
10/8/2025
AUAR and Mitigation Plan
11/3/2025
11/18/2025
12/30/2025
1/26/2026
1/21/2026
10/14/2025
10/21/2025
11/10/2025
11/11/2025
Updated December 2015 Page 1
Quick Reference: Alternative Urban Areawide Review
Quick Reference: Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR)
The AUAR process is a hybrid of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) and Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) review processes. Responsible Governmental Units (RGU) can use an AUAR as a
planning tool to understand how different development scenarios will affect the environment of their
community before the development occurs. The process is designed to look at the cumulative impacts of
anticipated development scenarios within a given geographic area. The AUAR document uses a list of
questions adapted from the EAW form, but provides a level of analysis of typical urban area impacts
comparable to an EIS. Environmental analysis information from an AUAR can be used to inform local
planning and zoning decisions. This quick reference guide is meant to provide a brief overview of the AUAR
process and the steps required to successfully complete an AUAR. For more detailed guidance on properly
preparing an AUAR, please see the Recommended Content and Format Guide on the Environmental Quality
Board (EQB) website.
Please note that this quick reference guide is not intended to substitute for Minnesota Rules 4410. It is
designed to help RGUs and others implement the environmental review process more effectively and
efficiently. The guide does not alter the rules or change their meaning; if any inconsistencies arise between
this guide and the rules, the rules take precedent. Please contact EQB Staff with any questions at
Env.Review@state.mn.us or 651-757-2873.
RGU distributes draft
order for review for
comments. Notice is
published in the EQB
Monitor
(4410.3610 Subp. 5a B)
Government units and
interested persons have
30 days to submit
comments to RGU
(4410.3610 Subp. 5a C)
RGU considers
comments when
finalizing order for
review and adopts final
order within 15 days of
end of comment period
(4410.3610 Subp. 5a D
& E)
RGU distributes final
order and record of
decision to EQB and all
commenters within 10
days of decision
(4410.3610 Subp. 5a E)
Additional First Steps in AUAR Process for Certain Specific Large Projects
(Minnesota Rules 4410.3610, Subpart 5a)
Note: If you do not have a large project that meets the criteria described below, please see the AUAR
Process Steps on page two.
The 2009 Minnesota Rule amendments added additional required steps at the beginning of the AUAR
process if the review will cover any specific projects that meet mandatory Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) requirements or comprise at least 50 percent of the geographic area to be reviewed. These steps
include a public comment period on the scope of the AUAR review, specifically on the development
scenarios and relevant issues to be covered. These steps must occur before a final order for review can be
adopted.
Updated December 2015 Page 2
Quick Reference: Alternative Urban Areawide Review
RGU adopts an order for
review in preparation
for the AUAR
(4410.3610 Subp. 3 or
4410.3610 Subp. 5a E)
RGU develops draft AUAR
and mitigation plan
(4410.3610 Subp. 4 & 5 A)
AUAR Process Steps
(Minnesota Rules 4410.3610, Subparts 3-5)
RGU distributes
AUAR draft and
mitigation plan for
comments. Notice is
published in the EQB
Monitor
(4410.3610 Subp. 5 A)
Reviewers have 30 days
from publication date in
EQB Monitor to submit
written comments to
RGU. Government units
may request a 15 day
extension
(4410.3610 Subp. 5 B)
RGU revises draft AUAR
and mitigation plan based
on comments and
distributes final documents
to state agencies and Met
Council
(4410.3610 Subp. 5 C & D)
State Agencies and the Met
Council have 10 days from
receipt of final AUAR
documents to file an objection
(4410.3610 Subp. 5 D)
Negotiations between RGU
and objecting agency
(4410.3610 Subp. 5 F & G)
EQB action required
to determine adequacy
of AUAR documents
(4410.3610 Subp. 5 H)
Ob
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
No
t
Re
s
o
l
v
e
d
RGU adopts final
AUAR and mitigation
plan. Notice is
published in the EQB
Monitor
(4410.3610 Subp. 5 E)
Resolved
Unless the AUAR includes additional first steps due to a large specific project as detailed on page one, the
first step of the AUAR process is the adoption of an order for review by the RGU. The draft and final
AUAR, along with the mitigation plan, are prepared and distributed for comments to ensure adequate
review. A process for appeal to the EQB can be invoked by state agencies and the Metropolitan Council.
Updated December 2015 Page 3
Quick Reference: Alternative Urban Areawide Review
RGU completes a draft
update of the AUAR and
mitigation plan
(4410.3610 Subp. 5 D-H
& Subp. 7)
AUAR Update Process Steps
(Minnesota Rules 4410.3610 Subpart 7)
RGU distributes AUAR
draft and mitigation
plan update for
comments. Notice is
published in the EQB
Monitor
(4410.3610 Subp. 5 D
& Subp. 7)
Reviewers have 10
days from publication
date in EQB Monitor
to submit written
comments to RGU.
State Agencies and the
Met Council have 10
days from receipt of
final AUAR
documents to file an
objection
(4410.3610 Subp. 5 D)
Negotiations between RGU
and objecting agency
(4410.3610 Subp. 5 F & G)
EQB action required
to determine adequacy
of AUAR documents
(4410.3610 Subp. 5 H)
Ob
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
No
t
Re
s
o
l
v
e
d
RGU adopts final
AUAR and mitigation
plan. Notice is
published in the EQB
Monitor
(4410.3610 Subp. 5 E)
Resolved
Inadequate
Minnesota Rules provide guidance on the circumstances that require an AUAR update. Regardless of
any significant changes, the AUAR must be updated every five years until all of the development in
the area has been approved. An AUAR update is generally a faster process than starting a new AUAR
since the update process does not require a complete revision of the AUAR document. Instead, the
update process requires that the AUAR document, along with the mitigation plan, be updated to the
extent necessary to reflect the changes that have occurred in the area included in the review. The
updated documents are distributed in a manner similar to a final AUAR except that the documents
must be sent to all parties listed on the EAW distribution list and a notice must be published in the
EQB Monitor. The process for appeal to the EQB can still be invoked by state agencies and the
Metropolitan Council as in the normal AUAR process.
Environmental Quality Board
300 Centennial Building
658 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55155
Voice: 651.201.2492
Fax: 651.296.3698
Recommended Content and Format
Alternative Urban Areawide Review Documents
Updated by EQB staff September 2008
This guidance has been prepared by the EQB staff to assist in the preparation of AUAR documents. It is
based on the directive of 4410.3610, subp. 4 that “the content and format [of an AUAR document] must be
similar to that of an EAW, but must provide for a level of analysis comparable to that of an EIS for impacts
typical of urban residential, commercial warehousing, and light industrial development and associated
infrastructure.”
General Guidance
This guidance is based on the items of the standard EAW form (August 2008 revised version); the numbers
listed below refer to the item numbers of that form. Except where stated otherwise, the information
requested here is intended to augment (or clarify) the information asked for on the EAW form; therefore, the
EAW form and the guidance booklet EAW Guidelines (February 2000 edition) must be consulted along with
this guidance. Both documents are available at the EQB website:
www.eqb.state.mn.us/EnvRevGuidanceDocuments.htm). Although EAW Guidelines dates from 2000, and
some of the content is out-of-date, this document still provides useful advice for answering the questions on
the EAW form.
The information requested must be supplied for each of the major development scenarios being analyzed,
and it is important to clearly explain the differences in impacts between the various scenarios.
If this guidance indicates that an EAW item is not applicable to the AUAR, the item # and its title (the text
in bold print on the EAW form) should be included with an indication that the EQB guidance indicates that
no response is necessary in an AUAR (as opposed to just skipping reference to that item at all).
One general rule to keep in mind throughout the preparation of the AUAR document is that whenever a
certain impact may or may not occur, depending on the exact design of future developments, the AUAR
should cover the possible impacts through a “worst case scenario” analysis or else prevent the impacts
through the provisions of the mitigation plan. Failure to cover possible impacts by one of these means risks
the invalidation of the environmental review exemption for specific development projects.
Specific Guidance by EAW Form Item
1. Title. An appropriate descriptive title for the geographical area of the AUAR should be chosen.
2. Proposer. It is not necessary for AUAR purposes to identify property owners within the AUAR area
(although it may be useful to use such names as identifiers of various land parcels).
1
3. RGU. No changes from EAW form
4. Reason for EAW preparation. Not applicable to AUAR.
5. Location and maps. a. The county map is not needed for an AUAR. b. The USGS map should be
included. c. Instead of a site plan, include: (1) a map clearly depicting the boundaries of the AUAR
and any subdistricts used in the AUAR analysis; (2) land use and planning and zoning maps as
required in conjunction with items 9 and 27; and (3) a cover type map as required for item 10.
Additional maps may be included throughout the document wherever maps are useful for displaying
relevant information.
6. Description. Instead of the information called for on the form, the description section of an AUAR
should include the following elements for each major development scenario included:
-anticipated types and intensity (density) of residential and commercial/warehouse/light industrial
development throughout the AUAR area;
-infrastructure planned to serve development (roads, sewers, water, stormwater system, etc.)
Roadways intended primarily to serve as adjoining land uses within an AUAR area are normally
expected to be reviewed as part of an AUAR. More “arterial” types of roadways that would cross an
AUAR area are an optional inclusion in the AUAR analysis; if they are included, a more intensive
level of review, generally including an analysis of alternative routes, is necessary;
-information about the anticipated staging of various developments, to the extent known, and of the
infrastructure, and how the infrastructure staging will influence the development schedule.
Important Note: Every AUAR document MUST review one or more development scenarios based on and
consistent with the RGU’s Comprehensive Plan in effect when the AUAR is officially ordered. (This is
equivalent to reviewing the “no-build” alternative in an EIS.) If an RGU expects to amend its existing
Comprehensive Plan, it has the options of deferring the start of the AUAR until after adopting the amended
plan or reviewing developments based on both the existing and amended comprehensive plans; however, it
cannot review only a development based on an expected amendment to the existing plan. Also, the rules
require that one or more development scenarios analyzed must be consistent with known development plans
of property owners within the AUAR area.
7. Project magnitude data. No changes from the EAW form, except that the information should be
given for each major development scenario.
8. Permits and approvals required. A listing of major approvals (including any comprehensive plan
amendments and zoning amendments) and public financial assistance and infrastructure likely to be
required by the anticipated types of development projects should be given for each major
development scenario. This list will help orient reviewers to framework that will protect
environmental resources. The list can also serve as a starting point for the development of the
implementation aspects of the mitigation plan to be developed as part of the AUAR.
9. Land use. No changes from the EAW form.
10. Cover types. The following information should be provided instead:
a. cover type map, at least at the scale of a USGS topographic map, depicting:
-wetlands – identified by type (Circular 39)
-watercourses – rivers, streams, creeks, ditches
2
-lakes – identify public waters status and shoreland management classification
-woodlands – breakdown by classes where possible
-grassland – identify native and old field
-cropland
-current development
b. an“overlay” map showing anticipated development in relation to the cover types; this map
should also depict any “protection areas,” existing or proposed, that will preserve sensitive cover
types. Separate maps for each major development scenario should generally be provided.
11. Fish, wildlife, and ecologically sensitive resources.
a. The description of wildlife and fish resources should be related to the habitat types depicted on
the cover types maps (of item 10). Any differences in impacts between development scenarios
should be highlighted in the discussion.
b. For an AUAR, prior consultation with the DNR Division of Ecological Resources for
information about reports of rare plant and animal species in the vicinity is required. Include the
reference numbers called for on the EAW form in the AUAR and include the DNR’s response
letter. If such consultation indicates the need, an on-site habitat survey for rare species in the
appropriate portions of the AUAR area is required. Areas of on-site surveys should be depicted
on a map, as should any “protection zones” established as a result.
12. Physical impacts on water resources. The information called for on the EAW form should be
supplied for any of the infrastructure associated with the AUAR development scenarios, and for any
development expected to physically impact any water resources. Where it is uncertain whether water
resources will be impacted depending on the exact design of future development, the AUAR should
cover the possible impacts through a “worst case scenario” or else prevent impacts through the
provisions of the mitigation plan.
13. Water Use. If the area requires new water supply wells specific information about that appropriation
and its potential impacts on groundwater levels should be given; if groundwater levels would be
affected, any impacts resulting on other resources should be addressed.
14. Water-related Land Use Management Districts. Such districts should be delineated on
appropriate maps and the land use restrictions applicable in those districts should be described. If
any variances or deviations from these restrictions within the AUAR area are envisioned, this should
be discussed.
15. Water surface use. This item need only be addressed if the AUAR area would include or adjoin
recreational water bodies.
16. Erosion and sedimentation. The number of acres to be graded and number of cubic yards of soil to
be moved need not be given; instead, a general discussion of the likely earthmoving needs for
development of the area should be given, with an emphasis on unusual or problem areas. In
discussing mitigation measures, both the standard requirements of the local ordinances and any
special measures that would be added for AUAR purposes should be included.
17. Water Quality-stormwater runoff. For an AUAR the following additional guidance should be
followed in addition to that in EAW Guidelines:
-it is expected that an AUAR will have a detailed analysis of stormwater issues;
3
-a map of the proposed stormwater management system and of the water bodies that will receive
stormwater should be provided;
-the description of the stormwater systems would identify on-site and “regional” detention ponding
and also indicate whether the various ponds will be new water bodies or converted existing ponds or
wetlands. Where on-site ponds will be used but have not yet been designed, the discussion should
indicate the design standards that will be followed.
-if present in or adjoining the AUAR area, the following types of water bodies must be given special
analyses:
-lakes: within the Twin Cities metro area a nutrient budget analysis must be prepared for any
“priority lake” identified by the Metropolitan Council. Outside of the metro area, lakes needing a
nutrient budget analysis must be determined by consultation with the MPCA and DNR staffs;
-trout streams: if stormwater discharges will enter or affect a trout stream an evaluation of the
impacts on the chemical composition and temperature regime of the stream and the consequent
impacts on the trout population (and other species of concern) must be included;
18. Water Quality-Wastewater. Observe the following points of guidance in an AUAR:
-only domestic wastewater should be considered in an AUAR—industrial wastewater would be
coming from industrial uses that are excluded from review through an AUAR process;
-wastewater flows should be estimated by land use subareas of the AUAR area; the basis of flow
estimates should be explained;
-the major sewer system features should be shown on a map and the expected flows should be
identified;
-if not explained under item 6, the expected staging of the sewer system construction should be
described;
-the relationship of the sewer system extension to the RGU’s comprehensive sewer plan and (for
metro area AUARs) to Metropolitan Council regional systems plans, including MUSA expansions,
should be discussed. For non-metro area AUARs, the AUAR must discuss the capacity of the RGU’s
wastewater treatment system compared to the flows from the AUAR area; any necessary
improvements should be described;
-if on-site systems will serve part of the AUAR the guidance in EAW Guidelines on page 16
regarding item 18b under Residential development should be followed.
19. Geologic hazards and soil conditions. A map should be included to show any groundwater hazards
identified. A standard soils map for the area should be included.
20. Solid wastes; hazardous wastes; storage tanks. For a, generally only the estimated total quantity
of municipal solid waste generated and information about any recycling or source separation
programs of the RGU need to be included. No response is necessary for b. For c, potential locations
of storage tanks associated with commercial uses in the AUAR should be identified (e.g., gasoline
tanks at service stations).
21. Traffic. For AUAR reviews a detailed traffic analysis will be needed, conforming to the MnDOT
guidance as listed on the EAW form. The results of the traffic analysis must be used in the response
to item 22 and in the noise aspect of item 24.
22. Vehicle-related air emissions. Although the Pollution Control Agency no longer issues Indirect
Source Permits, traffic-related air quality may still be an issue if the analysis in item 21 indicates that
development would cause or worsen traffic congestion. The general guidance for item 22 in EAW
4
Guidelines should still be followed. Questions about the details of air quality analysis should be
directed to the MPCA staff.
23. Stationary source air emissions. This item is not applicable to an AUAR. Any stationary air
emissions source large enough to merit environmental review requires individual review.
24. Dust, odors, noise. Dust, odors, and construction noise need not be addressed in an AUAR, unless
there is some unusual reason to do so. The RGU might want to discuss as part of the mitigation plan,
however, any dust control or construction noise ordinances in effect.
If the area will include or adjoin major noise sources a noise analysis is needed to determine if any
noise levels in excess of standards would occur, and if so, to identify appropriate mitigation
measures. With respect to traffic-generated noise, the noise analysis should be based on the traffic
analysis of item 21.
25. Sensitive resources:
Archeological, historic, and architectural resources. For an AUAR, contact with the State Historic
Preservation Office and State Archeologist is required to determine whether there are areas of
potential impacts to these resources. If any exist, an appropriate site survey of high probability areas
is needed to address the issue in more detail. The mitigation plan must include mitigation for any
impacts identified.
Prime or unique farmlands. The extent of conversion of existing farmlands anticipated in the AUAR
should be described. If any farmland will be preserved by special protection programs, this should be
discussed.
Designated parks, recreation areas, or trails. If development of the AUAR will interfere or change
the use of any existing such resource, this should be described in the AUAR. The RGU may also
want to discuss under this item any proposed parks, recreation areas, or trails to be developed in
conjunction with development of the AUAR area.
Scenic views and vistas. Any impacts on such resources present in the AUAR should be addressed.
This would include both direct physical impacts and impacts on visual quality or integrity. EAW
Guidelines contains a list of possible scenic resources on page 13.
26. Adverse visual impacts. If any non-routine visual impacts would occur from the anticipated
development, this should be discussed here along with appropriate mitigation.
27. Compatibility with Plans. The AUAR must include a statement of certification from the RGU that
its comprehensive plan complies with the requirements set out at 4410.3610, subpart 1. The AUAR
document should discuss the proposed AUAR area development in the context of the comprehensive
plan. If this has not been done as part of the responses to items 6, 9, 18, 21, and others, it must be
addressed here; a brief synopsis should be presented here if the material has been presented in detail
under other items. Necessary amendments to comprehensive plan elements to allow for any of the
development scenarios should be noted. If there are any management plans of any other local, state,
or federal agencies applicable to the AUAR area, the document must discuss the compatibility of the
plan with the various development scenarios studied, with emphasis on any incompatible elements.
28. Impact on infrastructure and public services. This item should first of all summarize information
on physical infrastructure presented under items (such 6, 17, 18 and 21).
Other major infrastructure or public services not covered under other items should be discussed as
5
6
well — this includes major social services such as schools, police, fire, etc.
The RGU must be careful to include project-associated infrastructure as an explicit part of the
AUAR review if it is to exempt from project-specific review in the future.
29. Cumulative potential effects. Because the AUAR process by its nature is intended to deal with
cumulative potential effects from all future developments within the AUAR area, it is presumed that
the responses to all items on the EAW form automatically encompass the impacts from all
anticipated developments within the AUAR area.
However, the total impact on the environment with respect to any of the items on the EAW form
may also be influenced by past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects outside of the
AUAR area. The cumulative potential effect descriptions may be provided as part of the responses to
other appropriate EAW items, or in response to this item.
30. Other potential environmental impacts. If applicable, this item should be answered as requested
by the EAW form.
31. Summary of Issues. The RGU may answer this question as asked by the form, or instead may
choose to provide an Executive Summary to the document that basically covers the same
information. Either way, the major emphasis should be on: potentially significant impacts, the
differences in impacts between major development scenarios, and the proposed mitigation.
Certification by the RGU. For an AUAR document, no certifications as listed at the end of the EAW
form are necessary. (The RGU is legally responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the document and
for properly distributing it nonetheless.)
Mitigation Plan. The draft and final AUAR documents must include an explicit mitigation plan.
It must be understood that the mitigation plan is a commitment by the RGU to prevent potentially
significant impacts from occurring from specific projects. It is more than just a list of ways to reduce
impacts—it must include information about how the mitigation will be applied and assurance that it will.
Otherwise, the AUAR may not be adequate and/or specific projects may lose their exemption from the
individual review.
The RGU’s final action on the AUAR must specifically adopt the mitigation plan; therefore, the plan has a
“political” as well as a technical dimension.
Response to comments on the draft AUAR document. The final AUAR document must include a section
specifically responding to each timely and substantive comment on the draft that indicates the way in which
the comment has been addressed. Similar comments may be combined for purposes of responding.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN | NOVEMBER 23RD, 2020 ADOPTION
CHAPTER 3:
LAND USE, GROWTH AND
ORDERLY ANNEXATION
5
MONTICELLO 2040 VISION + PLAN 13
FUTURE LAND USE MAP
EXHIBIT 3.3
City of Monticello Boundary
Monticello Orderly Annexation Area (MOAA)
Parcels
Streets
Railroad
Water Bodies
Development Reserve (DR)
Open Space and Resource Conservation (OSRC)
City Parks and Recreation (PR)
Estate Residential (ER)
Low-Density Residential (LDR)
Traditional Residential (TR)
Mixed Neighborhood (MN)
Mixed-Density Residential (MDR)
Manufactured Home (MH)
Downtown Mixed-Use (DMU)
Community Commercial (CC)
Regional Commercial (RC)
Commercial and Residential Flex (CRF)
Employment Campus (EC)
Light Industrial Park (LIP)
General Industrial (GI)
Public and Institutional (P)
Xcel Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant (MNGP)
North
MONTICELLO 2040 VISION + PLAN 21
Land Use Categories Acreage
Development Reserve 3,100
Open Space and Resource Conservation 1,171
City Parks and Recreation 418
Estate Residential 1,102
Low-Density Residential 2,198
Traditional Residential 74
Mixed Neighborhood 635
Mixed-Density Residential 348
Manufactured Home 135
Downtown Mixed-Use 48
Community Commercial 125
Regional Commercial 433
Commercial and Residential Flex 174
Light Industrial Park 757
General Industrial 220
Employment Campus 752
Public and Institutional 268
Xcel Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant 616
TABLE 3.7: FUTURE LAND USE ACREAGES
Note: This acreage includes both developed and undeveloped land within the City and MOAA.
MONTICELLO 2040 VISION + PLAN 39
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL PARK (LIP)
The Light Industrial designation accommodates a variety of light industrial uses. Uses are characterized by a higher level of amenities not required in the General Industrial
designation. Characteristics such as noise, vibration and odor do not occur or do not generate significant impacts. Hazardous materials handling and storage may also occur but
must be stored indoors or screened from the public right-of-way. Activities such as the handling of hazardous materials and outdoor storage are limited. This land use designation
does not include the principal retail commercial uses found in the Employment Campus and a more limited range of commercial activities. Transportation impacts which occur are in
direct support of the manufacturing or production use. The Light Industrial land use is distinguished from General Industrial land use by reduced potential for noise, visibility, truck
activity, storage, and other land use impacts.
The Light Industrial Designation accommodates uses such as processing, assembly, production, and fabrication manufacturing which uses moderate amounts of partially processed
materials, warehousing and distribution, research and development, medical laboratories, machine shops, computer technology, and industrial engineering facilities. Office uses
also occur within these areas. This designation also accommodates limited local-serving commercial uses which may generate storage or noise impacts.
“Computer technology” includes active technology uses dominated by office and research-oriented businesses.
The Light Industrial Designation accommodates Data Center (or similar “Technology Campus”) development for passive computer storage and processing only when specific
elements are demonstrated. Consideration of these uses in the LIP areas shall be subject to the following review requirements, among others as determined on a case-by-case
basis:
a. The City’s 2040 Plan recognizes data centers as a singularly unique land use due to size and scope.
b. Data center use locations will not create conflict with other land uses, especially residential land uses, through off-site impacts including unusual amounts of noise, lights,
odors, or other similar aspects. Data center users will demonstrate site conditions that meet this condition and are consistent with other light industrial development.
c. Where data center development creates shortages in land supply, utility services, electric generation service to the broader area, or any other impacts on the City of
Monticello or its neighboring communities, and which are not specifically mitigated by the data center developer and its associated partners, the City is under no obligation to
accommodate the use within any land use district or location, or through any land use process.
d. Data center uses shall demonstrate convincingly that its burden on municipal services, infrastructure, or fiscal condition is completely mitigated by the data center project and
its developers, and such mitigation is sustainable by its subsequent owners, users, and other related entities.
e. The data center will not inhibit future growth; it will accommodate and facilitate the extension of efficient and orderly municipal infrastructure to the edge of the development
property consistent with the City’s plans for growth.
f. Full and clear assurances from both the data center use and the electric utility provider that data center development will not create threats of power loss to the community,
nor limit the city’s other growth and development interests in the future.
Data Center development is considered against each of these factors, and other site- or use-specific factors that may be relevant at the time of any such proposal. The City
reserves the discretion to determine that any location or project has the potential to imperil the City’s infrastructure, related regional infrastructure, the City’s future land use goals,
the City’s various economic development goals and objectives, the City’s financial and fiscal obligations and projections, or any other reasonable area of City authority. No area
guided LIP (or any other land use category) shall have an inherent right to Data Center development under this amendment.
LAND USE, GROWTH AND ORDERLY ANNEXATION 40
Primary Mode
Vehicular with access
to collectors and
arterials
Transit or shuttle
service
Secondary Mode
Shared bike/
pedestrian facilities
MOBILITY
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL PARK (LIP) CONTINUED
DEVELOPMENT FORM
• Floor Area Ratio
(FAR): 0.50 to 0.75
• Height: Up to 4 stories
• Lot Area: N/A
LOT PATTERN
VISUAL EXAMPLE
ZONING INFORMATION
2018 Correlating
Zoning District
IBC
Industrial Business Campus
I-1
Light Industrial District
LAND USE MIX
Industrial
• Warehousing and
Distribution
• Light Manufacturing
• Assembly
• Production & Fabrication
• Research and
Development
• Medical Laboratories
• Computer Technology
Commercial
• Minor Auto-Repair
• Self Storage
Monticello Industrial Final AUAR
City Council| January 26, 2026
AUAR OVERVIEW
Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR):
•A planning tool used to evaluate the environmental impacts of different development
scenarios before development occurs
•Allows the City to consider the impact of more than one development scenario
•Identifies mitigation strategies to manage and regulate expected impacts
•Environmental review process that has attributes of both an Environmental Assessment
Worksheet (EAW) and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
•Not an approval of a specific project
•Provides a foundation of information for other study and review requirements
MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL AUAR SCENARIOS
•Consultant preparation and review
•Prepared by Kimley-Horn
•Reviewed by City staff and WSB (City’s environmental
review consultant)
•Provides the City with data to inform planning decisions for
two different development scenarios
•Technology campus, including data center uses
•Light industrial uses typical to Light Industrial Park land
use designation, not including principal use data
centers
•Evaluates maximum development capacity impacts for both
scenarios and identifies related mitigation measures to
address impacts for both scenarios
WHAT DOES THE MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL
AUAR REVIEW?
•Analysis of AUAR category areas:
•Project Information & Scenarios
•Land Use & Land Cover
•Climate Adaptation and Resilience –
including estimates of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions and Carbon Footprint
•Permits Required
•Geology & Soils
•Water Resources
•Surface, groundwater, water
appropriations, wastewater,
stormwater
•Contamination
•Wildlife & Habitat
•Cultural Resources
•Visual
•Air
•Noise
•Transportation
•Cumulative Potential Effects
•Other – Power next steps, site security,
Electromagnetic Field Radiation
•Mitigation Plan
ADDITIONAL FUTURE STUDIES
AUAR mitigation plan identifies additional studies to be completed once a specific project is identified:
•For both scenarios
•Noise evaluation to confirm if specific noise mitigation measures are needed with site design
•Project specific stormwater management plan
•Phase I/II Environmental Site Assessment for potential contamination on site
•Tree survey
•Supplemental Archaeological Survey
•Specific to Scenario 1
•A hydrogeological analysis to site the Rapid Infiltration Basin system within the study area, then
MPCA review and permit (including an EAW) prior to construction
•Completion of a well capacity and aquifer pumping plan
•Additional environmental reviews may be necessary for backup generators, sewer extensions, water
appropriation and power needs
HOW DOES THE AUAR INFORM DEVELOPMENT
DECISIONS?
•Indicates timing and responsible party for the additional
studies required prior to or as part of development
applications
•Identifies permits and additional environmental review
required for either/both scenarios
•Provides an outline for public improvements needed
•Mitigation Plan outlines requirements and strategies to
address potential development impacts for the two scenarios
•Information/requirements as part of development and
construction
Graphic provided by Kimley Horn
TIMELINE
•Scoping Document Review: July-October 2025
•Scoping Document Acceptance and Order to Prepare AUAR: October 13, 2025
•Review of AUAR: Currently on-going
•Council Authorizes AUAR for distribution: November 10, 2025
•Distribute Draft AUAR & Mitigation Plan for review: November 11, 2025
•Draft AUAR & Mitigation Plan available for 30-day comment period: November 18, 2025
•AUAR Open House: November 20, 2025
•AUAR Review – Joint City Council & Planning Commission: December 15, 2025
•Draft AUAR & Mitigation Plan revision: December 2025
•Final AUAR & Mitigation Plan distribution and 10-day objection period: December/January 2026
•Adoption of Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan: January 2026
FINAL MONTICELLO INDUSTRIAL AUAR
•Final AUAR for Council review incorporates:
•Public comment received during the 30-day public comment period
•Comments taken during the Planning Commission and City Council workshop
•Revised AUAR including comments and comment responses was resubmitted to the EQB
and published for the required agency comment period and posted to the City website
•No objections from state agencies received during the 10-day objection period
RECOMMENDATION
Motion to adopt Resolution 2026-02, adopting the Monticello Industrial Alternative Urban
Areawide Review and the Monticello Industrial Alternative Urban Areawide Review Mitigation
Plan, based on findings in said resolution.
In adopting the resolution, Council is finding that the AUAR:
•Includes the appropriate level of analysis for the development scenarios
•Follows the required process for review and comment
•Mitigation Plan reflects adequate measures to address impacts from development project
scenarios